1. SALMON HUME IN CONTEMPORARY TERMS

2. Wesley Salmon 1925 - 2001 Philosopher of science Metaphysician: causation Student of Hans Reichenbach “Vienna Circle” aka Ernst Mach Society Positivists=Humeans

3. SCIENTIFIC “PROOF” (245-6 & 250-53) “Proof” that Prof. Salvia’s pendulum will not hit his nose depends on mathematics and law of conservation of energy. The mathematics is proven [cf. Hume’s relation of ideas], but what about scientific laws?

4. SCIENTIFIC “PROOF” (245-6 & 250-53) Logic of scientific “proof” of laws is fallacious (250-53): 1) If law is true, then we will observe specified phenomena 2) We do observe specified phenomena. SO: 3) Law is true. [fallacy of affirming the consequent]

5. MODERN ANSWERS 1 SCIENCE WORKS (257-8) SO we should accept it. BUT: we cannot conclude science will continue to work—unless we assume the scientific method. This, however, is circular.

6. MODERN ANSWERS 2 KANT’S THEORY (258) Uniformity of nature is a priori truth. BUT, as Hume said, we can conceive of natural chaos: “May I not clearly and distinctly conceive…snow [that] has yet the taste of salt or feeling of fire?” [cf. clarity & distinctness – Descartes]

7. MODERN ANSWERS 3 POSTULATION (258-9) Uniformity of nature is postulate of science. BUT, this begs the question [assumes what needs to be proven]: “…postulating…has many advantages…as the advantages of theft over honest toil” Bertrand Russell

8. MODERN ANSWERS 4 Sir Karl POPPER (260-61) Science is conjectural. BUT: this “deprives science of its predictive function.” (261) Note: we will consider Popper in more detail in the next class.

9. MODERN ANSWERS 5 PRAGMATISM (261-3) i) Either nature is uniform or it is not. ii) If nature is uniform, then we should use scientific method. iii) If nature is not uniform, then we are “out of luck” anyway. SO: iv) We have much to gain, nothing to lose, in assuming nature uniform. [note similarity to James, pp. 106-14]