Talk:Hume's fork

message: There is no criticism section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.225 (talk) 11:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: criticism section

message: 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)
thread_title:  Clean up. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statements are too strong 

message: "Hume wants to prove that certainty does not exist in science"
Does he? Science, even without the problem of induction, does not offer us any kind of certainty, but only probability. It is admitted by knowledgable advocates of the principle of induction that it cannot give certainty. I'd say that Hume is trying to make us reject inductive reasoning altogether.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by BombaMolotov (talk • contribs) 16:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Certainty in Science 

message: I think some attention should be given to this example of the second half of the fork:
water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit
Is this an observable knowable, or a definition?  It could be either depending on context.  We might chose a clearer illustrative example.
--173.33.212.115 (talk) 07:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how that's a definition. It's an observation of water doing something at a certain temperature.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.31.229 (talk) 16:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example problem 

message: The examples the author gives for synthetic judegements are actually analytic, and vice versa. The '2+2=4' example of an analytic judgement is most notably innacurate, as Kant uses a similar equation (7+5=12) as an example of a synthetic judgement in his Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics. (Kant, Immanuel.  Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy, Revised edition 2004, Pg. 18) Furthermore, Kant claims that all mathematical propositions are synthetic. (Kant, Immanuel.  Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy, Revised edition 2004, Pg. 18) The author is clearly confused on this point (of synthetic and analytic judgements), and I believe this article should be rewritten so that it contains a more valid account of it.
Rcthepirate (talk) 04:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples of Analytic and Synthetic Judgements 

message: I removed this comment from the article, because in addition to being uncited it interrupted the flow of the article:
{This is a common error concerning Hume's philosophy. Hume actually wants to figure out what we could mean by 'certainty' in science, and seeks to discover from where we received the idea of the certainty or necessity in science. He shows that it is not derived from a priori reasoning, but is instead is a product of human nature.}
--Jules.LT (talk) 10:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hume himself did not quite explicate Hume's fork.  The term as well as the content of Hume's fork—much like Hume's problem of induction as well as Hume's law—was developed and refined by later philosophers.  If you want a "pure" explanation of Hume, then undo most accepted scholarship on and summaries of Hume's theses.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.226.116 (talk) 05:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed probable Original Research 

message: The opening paragraph of this article seems too technical to me. I'm a professional mathematician but had to re-read it a couple of times before I got the point. Unfortunately I don't have the expertise to write a jargon-free intro myself but perhaps somebody else could? Just a couple of sentences so that the interested layman who has never heard of Hume or his work can find out what the phrase "Hume's fork" means...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.138.16 (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction for the layman 

message: Just a layman but my understanding is that "Kant's analytic synthetic distinction" is really a riff and expansion of Hume's Fork. Shouldn't there be a single article that then lays out the distinction between their two formulations? The Hume article links to the Kant article but the Kant article makes no mention of Hume's Fork. Seems bad to me. Thedonquixotic (talk) 02:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this be merged with the synthetic/analytic distinction article?