Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

The Problems of Philosophy - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Sense data that causes awareness e.g.
        the sense data of all the colours and shades from looking at a plant
        Note: By nature of sense data a true knowledge of the colour of the plant cannot be known. I am only acquainted with the sense that's feeding through my eyes but I am unaware of the nature of the colour of the plant as an electromagnetic phenomenon
- - - - The same can be said of the dinosaurs (if they were conscious enough think into the long term) may have expected their view of the uniformity of nature to continue indefinitely
    - - The probability of the general law is obviously less than the probability of the particular case
        If the probability of the general law (e.g. A is associated with B) is true the particular case must be true but the particular case maybe true without the general law being true. It thus follows that an event may occur despite the the fact that probability renders it practically impossible e.g. origin of life??
        The inductive principle can therefore not be disproved by experience alone since it does not confirm certainty
        
        Some examples of the use of the inductive principle:
        1) Every event must have a cause?
        2) The law of gravity is the same everywhere in the universe?
- - - - Knowledge based on inference are
        always impossible to doubt
      - The principle of inference is further based on
        these 3 principles that are taken for granted
        or self evident logical principles:
        1) The law of identity: 'Whatever is, is'
        2) The law of contradiction: 'Nothing can both be and not be'. Is this really true in the realm of quantum mechanics?
        3) The law of excluded middle: 'Everything must either be or not be'
  - - - a priori knowledge splits into:
        1) Logic
        2) Mathematics
        3) Ethics
  - - - However, induction can yield more certainty
        than deduction. For example:
        We can reason by deduction that if all men are mortal then Socrates is mortal because he is a man. A useless round about argument though since Socrates is dead.
        However, by induction we can argue with more certainty that if person A, B, C....are mortal then there is a higher probability that Socrates is mortal because persons A, B, C...being mortal would imply that some men may not be mortal (therefore we may not be able to argue deductively since we can't use "If all men are mortal" then "Socrates must be mortal"
        
        All empirical generalisations are more
        uncertain that the instances of them so it is better to use induction
        Deduction is better for general prepositions i.e. a priori statements e.g. 2 + 2 = 4