🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <BwrLMH.B6y@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> chalmers@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (David Chalmers) writes:
>In article <1992Oct24.135558.15100@oracorp.com> daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough) writes:
>
>>In terms of falsification, you could just as well have said "All
>>non-black things are non-crows". In this form, to test the theory, you
>>would look for a non-black thing which is not a non-crow. Getting rid
>>of the double-negatives, once again we find that we are looking for
>>a non-black crow.
>>
>>So, while the process of establishing a law by induction seems to
>>allow a green tie to be evidence for "all crows are black", the
>>process of attempting to falsify the law doesn't allow such
>>irrelevancies to count as evidence.
>
>Hang on.  To falsify this, we're looking for crowish non-black things,
>right?  I happened across a non-black thing (that green thing in my
>closet), and it turned out not to be a crow (in fact, it was a tie).
>Doesn't that mean my attempt to falsify failed, and that this should
>be counted as evidence.

    It has been argued that such inductive reasoning is not proper
    for science.

                             dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926