From "Legend of Constellations" and "Chicken Soup for the Soul" to "Hume Theorem"

The so-called "Hume's Theorem" means that "a normative proposition cannot obtain a reason based on a purely factual statement". Philosophers' language is always self-contained, and the words used seem to be too lofty for ordinary people to understand and don't want to understand at all, so its original function is difficult to benefit the public, but it is itself "indifferent" to the world.

To understand this sentence or use it to improve our ability to distinguish the world, we need to start with the difference between induction and deduction. Everyone will die, which is a true proposition. Socrates is a human being, so it can be concluded that Socrates is bound to die. This is deductive method. Then what is induction? There are six eggs in the box, and the first five eggs are smelly when they are taken out, so it is speculated that the remaining one is smelly, which is induction. These two simplest examples show that deductive method is based on true proposition, and inductive method is based on historical phenomenon, which represents two fundamentally opposite ways of thinking.

Induction depends on the collection of historical phenomena, but no one can guarantee that future phenomena are in the collection of past phenomena. This is very profound, that is, the only exception is that there will always be exceptions. An exception is an exception because it has never appeared, otherwise it would not be called an exception. So "Hume's theorem" actually means that "the legitimacy of using induction can never be rationally proved." This sentence is terrible. The legitimacy of all historical induction methods is irrational, which means that any truth we hear from experience, no matter how reasonable it sounds, is irrational.

And where is the basis of various "constellation theories"? In fact, it is a kind of technical analysis, which summarizes the characteristics of people born in that time interval and then draws all kinds of so-called accurate predictions.

But all technical analysis comes from induction, since all historical experience induction can never be proved rationally, technical analysis comes from induction, which means all technical analysis is irrational in reason. In other words, the "constellation theory" based on induction is an unreliable statistical analysis of historical data. Maybe some people who are obsessed with "constellation theory" should reflect on it.

Some people will argue that the statistical analysis of constellations and the guidance for the future are actually supported by probability, and the probability theory itself is very reliable. Yes, probability itself is very reliable, but the problem is that the past frequency does not represent the future probability, and the two concepts of probability and frequency are very easy to be confused. Probability is reliable in the future. For example, a dice has six sides. If it is not tampered with, the probability of any number appearing in it is one in six. However, if the average distribution of numbers in a thing is one sixth, it doesn't mean that it will be one sixth in the future, because the number of any dice is determined by its physical structure, which is probability, while the latter's statistics on the distribution of numbers are empirical induction, which is only the frequency of the past. "The law of causality does not come from experience", which is Kant's words, and it makes sense. Kant became "the father of modern philosophy". In my opinion, a big reason lies in his absolute insight. In fact, the philosophy before Kant was vague, and it was only after Kant that we really understood philosophy. It is with this groundbreaking assertion that he broke everyone's common sense.

Karl popper is more ruthless than david hume. He said that induction can neither give people the knowledge of future inevitability nor the knowledge of future probability. What do you mean? We come to the conclusion that swans must be white, but there may be black swans in the future, which is inevitable knowledge. So what is possible knowledge? If I see that 80% of swans are white, can I assert that 80% of swans I see in the future are white swans? Impossible. It's called probabilistic knowledge.

The biggest problem in this world is that stupid people are always confident and smart people are always suspicious. Maybe not everyone will agree with this sentence, but when you understand that "induction can neither give people the knowledge of future inevitability nor the knowledge of future probability", you have to admit how limited human understanding of the world is. Of course, this does not involve spiritual beliefs. Once spiritual belief approaches agnosticism, it is not far from depression.

In fact, Popper's assertion is only a supplement to david hume's assertion, and the most fundamental truth is that the legitimacy of induction will never be established in reason. Pay a little attention to the news, and we can always be lucky to encounter a once-in-a-century flood. Although we are young, we can wait for the once-in-a-century flood many times, because it is normal based on normal distribution or any probability distribution.

"falsifiability" is a very important concept put forward by Popper, and I even think it is the key for us to know lies and understand the world. There is a famous example in philosophy-"The Dragon in carl sagan Garage". Carl sagan announced that there was a fire-breathing dragon in his garage. Can you believe it? I'm sure I won't believe it, and then we'll say, then open the garage door and show it to us. I've never seen a dragon. I really want to see it. Unfortunately, this dragon is invisible, even if you open the door, you can't see it. Then he added, in fact, only I can see this dragon. The routine of this story must be familiar to everyone. Didn't you say it would breathe fire? Sorry, the fire is cold, so if you let it breathe fire, you still won't feel it. Even so, my dragon really exists and is invisible. I drew the garage, and this dragon appeared, right? He said, I'm sorry, very sorry. My dragon doesn't touch paint, and you still can't see it. Finally, he added, I believe it really exists.

Now simply analyze how ridiculous this example is. How can you believe these stories? But after careful observation and analysis, isn't the current "chicken soup for the soul" also this routine? Therefore, these godlike theories can neither prove their effectiveness nor prove their mistakes. Such theories are called "falsifiable theory". I think these falsifiable theories, although they look great, are actually hooligans, meaningless and paralyzing the mind.

Of course, neither Hume's Theorem nor Popper's falsifiability wants to make us despair. There is still a gap between doubt and impossibility. Skeptics are very skeptical about realism. In fact, Hume may be a little extreme. He thinks the world is completely incomprehensible. However, if the world can't be known at all, then what are we fooling around with?

"Not knowing your ignorance is double ignorance". Only by knowing how limited human wisdom is and how ignorant people are about the world can we get rid of real bad luck. More importantly, everyone should know which things around them are facts and which are just experiences, so as to get rid of uncertainty.

r