Talk:Hume's fork

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There seems to be a couple of issues with this article. While one could state, "Hume essentially proved that no truth exists in science," Hume provided a (more accurate) portrayal of science as a system of probability and uncertainty (reminding one of quantum mechanics). Additionaly, Hume specifically doubts such events as: "The next time we drop a rock, it might miraculously go up," in 'On Miracles' in his 'Enquiry,' as miracles (as they are defined) go against the laws of nature, which have been crafted and finetuned over the years to represent a vast amount of experience humanity has had with the world. The probability of a rock going up instead of down, based on our past experiences is essentially nil. Indeed, even if such a thing were to happen, Hume would question the witness's validity and integrity.

This is the long way of saying that I think the first statement might lead readers to think that Hume the empiricist thought science was pointless, and that the second statement does not reflect his philosophy.

[edit] Clean up.

This article is a little messy and unstructured in my opinion. Could someone flag this article as such please? FredTheDeadHead 10:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Book

There is a novel coming out in 2007 by this same title. Some one should mention this.

[edit] Statements are too strong

I have made some changes as some statements were too strong. You can prove a mathematical statement true or false by provision of examples if the statement covers a finite set (all odd numbers less than 9 are prime is provable by example) - this is proof by exhaustion.

Also, stating that Hume denies the possibility of the proof of the existence of God is suspect. According to Hume's Fork, we can prove he exists as a relationship of ideas (e.g. the ontological argument) or as a matter of fact. Proving he exists requires a precise definition and measurable physical evidence - which is remarkably unlikely, but not ruled out by the Fork. BananaFiend 08:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Weakened the statement that proof of God is made pointless by Hume's Fork. The argument depended on a definition of God that was implied as accepted in some way. BananaFiend 16:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)