Re:Computation as a Universal and Fundamental Concept
by GoblinSlayer on Sunday July 12, 2026 @06:07AM
(#48879870)
Isn't it obvious that scientific method is fallible? It's just statistically better than pure reason, which should be possible to demonstrate statistically. It's a product of trial and error, and there were many errors, I don't think there's much metaphysics there.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Computation as a Universal and Fundamental Concept
by Diogenesian on Sunday July 12, 2026 @07:12AM
(#48880182)
The problem is not that it's fallinle, but that there's no noncircular explanation for why it seems to work. Inductive reasoning foesn't have a rational explanation, judt an intuitive one.
I don't think your claim is possible to prove statistically - what does "pure reason" mean? And of course it's *pure reason + empirical observatoons," since even if they're not running experiments they still see natural phenomena.
Re:Computation as a Universal and Fundamental Concept
by GoblinSlayer on Monday July 13, 2026 @10:52AM
(#48893645)
It works because humans looked for a method that works, they tried different methods and chose one that works best, actually it gradually evolved over time.
Pure reason is conjecture with little empirical input (and big intuitive or memey input) and little verification of output, i.e. a large deviation from empiricism.