| Annotation Metadata
|
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Pe1dhp2qr4","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ8Ӻ","startOffset":2528,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ8Ӻ","endOffset":3935°Ӻ,"quote":"But success is relative. The more often a particular conceptual structure has led to satisfactory results, the more closely it comes to resemble what, in the traditional way of thinking, would be called experiential or, more precisely, inductive knowledge. The resemblance, however, is misleading. \nIn the traditional way of thinking, there is a sleight of hand that usually remains hidden even to the thinker him- or herself. It is the same trick that the statistician performs quite openly: when something has recurred a sufficient number of times, it is considered “significant”—which is to say, it is considered probable enough to be taken as a “fact.” The good statistician, of course, does not forget that it was he or she who decided the level of recurrence beyond which things were to be considered “significant.” Like the good modern physicist, he does not argue that, just because the sun has risen every morning for as long as we can remember or have records, we have the right to assume that it must continue to do so in the future. With David Hume, they know that there is no conceivable logical reason why the future should resemble the past. But, for practical reasons, we tend to assume that it will. If we did not make that assumption, we could not draw any inferences at all from past experience, and our attempts at predicting and controlling future experience could not even get started.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321078215333829526132":^°°,^"jQuery321078215333829526132":^°°,^"jQuery321078215333829526132":^°°,^"jQuery321078215333829526132":^°°,^"jQuery321078215333829526132":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Argumentation2","data_creacio":1568974903249°
|
