Authored by: Mitchell LeBlanc.

Chris Bolt and I have carried on a rather long-winded discussion regarding inductive reasoning and of course, the Christian God. In his recent post which is intended, as all the others, as a response to my previous discussions, he accuses me of espousing inconsistencies. I’ll briefly respond to a few of his points and then offer my final word on this particular issue.

Initially, I’d like to point out to Chris the nature of this website may not be the same as his. The reason I made a point to convey that the matter of the problem of induction was hotly debated was simply to point out this fact to the reader base of Urban Philosophy. This website isn’t quite a personal blog of my own, it’s a community and we have some readers who are not as involved in Philosophy as either of us. The last thing I want to do is have anything I’ve said be taken on authority alone, hence why I make pointed here and there which encourage further reading. Further, I find it almost humorous that Bolt would criticize me on being skeptical or encouraging skepticism when his entire epistemic system is based on such skepticism.

With that said I’ll turn to a couple of the points he raised:

Pragmatism as Failure

Bolt accuses me of biased reading and erroneously assuming that finishing a book will provide me with answers. I assume no such thing, I simply said that I have not finished the book yet but the portions which I have leave me in agreement. In saying that we can continue to use induction to eventually discover any true inductions (if there are any) does not seem to me to beg the question. It might not be a justification of induction in Bolt’s opinion, but such is the nature of pragmatism. It needs not be a justification, it simply is a warrant for its continued use. There is no error here as Reichenbach is not attempting to contest that induction is justified or unjustified in that statement, simply that we have a reason to continue to use it. I do not see any invoked instance of induction in this very statement as he is not extrapolating from any past occurrences, but even if he were it is not a problem.

On Scientific Knowledge

[Mitch] writes, “That is to say, the better of two theories will be the one which has been subjected to more falsification attempts and has not yet been falsified”. I find the assertion that a theory somehow becomes more certain through more testing dubious and the assertion that a theory which has undergone more tests is the better theory dubious as well.

I’m afraid that Bolt misunderstands. A theory does not become more certain through more testing, it becomes more corroborated. To the best of my knowledge, Popper did not hold that proof or certainty was possible in scientific theorem, but this does not entail that knowledge is impossible.

An example of what Popper means is evident in the present day action of Science. When a theory is falsified it becomes discarded for a theory which explains the phenomena, this theory is the one which has the better explanatory power. Hence we deem theories obsolete and replace them when we discover another with greater explanatory power, the process of finding such further theories is to attempt to falsify all the theories which we have. Knowledge is completely possible, but it is certainty or proof which is the issue.

Square One?

I do not apply Popper’s method outside of science, with the exception of perhaps the legal system, but this doesn’t mean it cannot be. My area of specialty is certainly not the philosophy of science and it may be prudent to discuss such matters with such a philosopher.

A Tall Drink of Water

Bolt asks why I expect my next glass of water to remain water anymore than he expects it to turn into merlot. There are several reasons, including pragmatic reasons, but surely we can ask the same question to Bolt. In a portion of my most recent article which he chose to ignore, I presented three points which show the inability of Christianity to account for this same problem. Let us reconsider one of my three points here (briefly, as consultation to the previous article is expected):

Why the Uniformity of Nature doesn’t save the Christian

When the Christian proposes that the UON somehow relieves them of the burden set forth from the problem of induction they are simply deluded.

Even if one KNOWS that nature is uniform, this doesn’t seem to provide a justification for inductive reasoning. It would only act as such a justification if the Christian were omniscient. Consider the following example:

John is a Christian and John has had it revealed to him from God that nature is uniform. Is John any more justified than a non-Christian in concluding that because all of the swans he has seen are white therefore all swans are white? Surely, when John were to come across a Black Swan his proposed justification of induction would fail.

There are obviously things we do not know about the Universe and as such we can hold no certainty as to our inductive inferences. Perhaps the next time you throw a ball in the air it will cease to fall, not because of any violation in the UON but rather because of a previously unknown factor of the UON.

Let us contextualize what I’ve said here, why does Bolt presume that his next glass of water won’t become merlot? He says that he has been assured of the Uniformity of Nature, but even if this is the case he is not omniscient and cannot know all of nature’s uniformities! There is nothing inconsistent with Bolt being assured of the UON and going to get a glass of water and having it turn into merlot. This would not be a violation of the UON necessarily, but rather it could be an applicability of the UON to which Bolt was previously ignorant. That is to say that water turning into merlot under condition X may not be a violation of the UON but rather a previously unknown uniformity. Thus, how can Bolt say he is a position any better than the non-Christian? He is in precisely the same position, he just operates under a faulty presumption of certainty.

As for Bolt’s points on the nature of God, these would be better addressed in a separate article and I intend to do so after he responds in full to my discussion of God’s proposed honesty.

In closing, Bolt encourages me to turn my life over to Jesus Christ. I appreciate that Bolt may have good intentions in suggesting such a thing, but I have seen no good reasons for me to do so.