Couldn't get back to bed, so I'm up reading through some books and papers.

I'm a bit stumped after reading an short overview of Hume's "problem of induction" and Popper's response to it (Popper responds by being all-in on deductive reasoning). But from how I'm understanding Hume, we should be skeptical of deductive reasoning insofar as our acceptance of it as an effective tool(?) is based solely in our past experience.


Logic: More pointedly 

Uh guys, what if deductive reasoning is a product of inductive reasoning? Does that make it any less sound?

Logic: More pointedly 

@bthall the value of deductive reasoning is limited by the quality of the premises.

This is a hard limit, and most real-world premises are of poorer quality than advocates of pure deduction want to admit (even to themselves).

Logic: More pointedly 

@bthall From the Humean perspective as I understand it, logic would just be as reliable as anything can be.

On your last question: what would be logic less sound than? What would that mean?

(The problem you are raising is that if the justification of logic: given the formality, universality, generality and topic-neutrality of logic, what could justify it?)

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Scholar Social

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!