The Nature of Scepticism

David Hume's problem of induction rears it's ugly head.
We can never be certain the events that preceded will happen again. It is good enough to make the assumption and be most likely right. But one can never be certain.

I think it is a personal judgement call as to how many times you require for your validation.But to come to the conclusion the boy is lying based on his previous history of lying is a assumption.assume transitive verb \ə-ˈsm\ : to think that something is true or probably true without knowing that it is trueIt makes an ASS out of U & ME.

Sure all sounds reasonable. Except it is again a conclusion based on a assumption.
And it is that one time the kid is telling the truth that will bite you in the ass.

Hi Stile,I am in agreement too. My whole point was this:I have a daughter of 7 and a step daughter of 10.
The ten year old has had past history of lying and stealing certain toys and such of the 7 year old.
It became a problem but we deal with it and try not to wreck our kids self esteem or break their spirits.So one day I had to withdraw some cash to pay for something.It was 160 dollars. I put it in a drawer I keep stuff in like my wallet , bills and such that must be addressed. The money was in a postal envelope, (all 20's). The morning I got the money envelope I counted it and it was short 60 dollars, 3 twenties.
I searched everywhere. I made the assumption that If I did not take it, and my wife who I asked did not take it and I asked the 7 year old who was still home if she took it . She said no. Then concluded it was the 10 year old. I was livid. I could not confront her because she was already at school. I knew when I confronted her she would lie and deny taking it. I made it a point to try and not make to big a deal about it, but it had to be addressed, this stealing must STOP!
Just on a whim, I went back home, looked through the drawer again. Pressed into the side crack of the drawer was the 3 twentys. They were brand new, and very crisp and must of slipped out of the envelope when I put them in there.I was so relieved that I did not accuse my step daughter, because it would of been bad. She would of been telling the truth, and I would of course not of believed her. I was spared this by looking more into it. By exhausting all before the final conclusion.
I believe there is a lesson here somewhere.Edited by 1.61803, : No reason given.

All reasonable statements. Your point of course well founded.If my dogs are barking and everytime I go out there, there is nothing.
Am i going to get up the 10th time? No.But guess what? When I wake up in the morning and something is stolen or vandalized I would be ill pressed to blame the dogs.
The same could be said of anything. One thing does not necessarly follow another. The boy does not have to be lying.
We can be in grave error in our assumptions. I know it is obvious but we are all just EVC-ing here aren't we?
I get it Modulous.

Hi RAZD,I think the conclusions drawn, based on previous history are consistant with a rational and logical way to decision making.However it is not without flaws. Which is why it is sometimes prudent to error on the side of safety. If one assumes there is always a wolf one will never be surprised when the wolf does come for the herd.That being said, here is a example of assuming the wolf is coming when in fact it is a false alarm.Just a few weeks ago there was a shooting here in town. One brother told the other brother he was living with that he would not be home that night. It was a freezing night and the brother did come home. He was locked out without a key. He started rapping on the window and then started to climb into the house.
He was shot point blank by his brother with a shotgun. Killed.His brother ASSUMED it was a robber and CONCLUDED he was a threat.

Hi Stile, objective conclusion about what to do.I see it this way: We have a decision to make.
We have a number of possible out comes.
We want to base our decision on the most beneficial out come.
How do we do that?I am a villiager with sheep in the herd. Up in the distance I hear cries: Wolf! Wolf! Wolf!What am I going to do?
a) Stay in bed
b) Get up and see whats happening
c) wait for further developmentsEach decision has probable out comes
a1) If there is a wolf: I fucked up.
a2) no wolf: I stay warm in bed.
b1) no wolf: I waisted my time.
b2) wolf is there: I can save herd.
c1) no wolf: I stay warm in bed
c2) wolf is there: I fucked up.Option b is the best option. It's the only option does not allow a fuck up. Because If I respond and there is no wolf I waisted some time and sleep. However that is a small price to pay considering the alternative that there really is a wolf and I failed* to respond and help save the herd.
Edited by 1.61803, : added *the word failed

Stick to the diagram please.
Well if I had the money to install a infrared camera system with wolf alarm we would not be having this conversation would we? Which brings to another old addage: " If you want something done right , do it yourself."

Brilliant, simply brilliant.
I jumped back in the fray because the topic intriques me.Of course all of us have a corner of the fabric of the nature of scepticism. Kind of like the bindmen and the
elephant!