Well, that’s great then.
Actually, it gives us confidene that our guessing is less random, but it is only confidence: we can neither inductively nor deductively know for sure, and knowing is what we want. We still have to assume the coin is fair, which we can neither prove deductivley nor experimentally.
[/quote]
I suppose if you have perfect faith in your deduction, you might Think this. If you mean that we can never know for sure that the increased confidence - which varies widely from individual to individual - is the right amount of increased confidence, sure, I agree. And I do Think the Medical industry, for example, overestimates its confidence. This hasn’t affected my confidence in it however.
“Makes chemicals” implies choice, and therefore, contradicts “randomly.”
Again, more choice making.
Did you not understand? With a gun pointed at your head and they will kill you if you do not choose, you could simply call out the 7th from the right OR you could look at the research and then choose informed to some degree by the research. Me, for example, I would not drink any of the ones that killed a bunch of mice and some humans. I would not be happy to drink one of the ones that in DB testing did not kill any of the rodents or humans, but I would damn well use the information. Your OP seems to imply that there would be no reason to use DB studies to make choices. The kind of skepticism that would argue that is one that I would guess most skeptics would give up once push came to shove. They would consider such research to improve chances of making an informed choice. And that is all any careful empiricist would suggest one is doing. It is true, a lot of empiricits are not careful, especially when they stand to make Money on interpretations, etc. But your OP makes it sound like we should give up such research. I mean, it COSTs Money. If it does not improve over chance, we could buy some food to feed AFricans - though, it is only via empirical research that we know people die without food also - and just choose what Chemicals to ingest randomly. So much Money would be saved or better spent elsewhere.
I doubt there is a single philosopher who Thinks such studies give certainty. Any working doctor would also know this is not the case, given what happens when patients take drugs. Psychologists and sociologists would also be incredibly skeptical about certainty.
Now many of these people likely overestimate how much confidence you can have, but the illusion of certainty is, yes, such an illusion that this exists.
I would also like to repeat that since you do not Think deduction is perfect and clearly Learning even from highly controlled experience is clearly not perfect, you seem to be presenting your own conclusions IN VERY CERTAIN TERMS.
What do you base your certainty on?