Steve3007 wrote: ↑October 12th, 2020, 9:12 am Yes, in my experience a lot of people here have a particular single issue that they mostly want to discuss. In your case it seems to me the thesis that western mainstream media deliberately don't print stories about bad stuff done by the Chinese Communist Party. But I like to see a bit of good healthy self-mockery!I am trying to come to terms with this happenning. My wife being from Hong Kong, I see stuff that never makes the news in The Netherlands. For example the police torturing a democracy activist in the hospital, on libe camera! So, I alert the media (multiple). No one ran the story. I do read CCP propaganda concerning Hong Kong, which is what gave it away to me.
But yes, I am aware of doing that. It is for me and for you. I hope you know what I mean.
[/quote]
That's one example of the process of taking a set of individual observations and finding the patterns in them - the things that they all share - to come up with a proposed objective reality. Rousseau, I guess, picks that as a nice clear example, but any set of individual observations would do. You could, for example, use the example of a circular coin seen at an angle. (I think Russell uses that example.)
So you think modern scientists don't do things like that anymore? If so, that would be a strange view to take. Doing things like that is the very definition of what science does.
[/quote]
I think that many do this and that not doing this is rewarded. They also call tjis machine learning. Likelyhood. Pay attention. You will see it more and more.
The problem is that every coherent thought has a major and a minor premisse (and relates to another thought in some way). However, many observations used as a set doesn't form a major premisse. Likelihood is not an exact determining factor.
~Immanuel Kant