Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: dorayme on 17 Dec 2009 01:12 In article <hgbr3n$vn9$4(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Les Cargill <lcargill99(a)comcast.net> wrote: > PD wrote: > >...Induction in the scientific sense does > > not involve that sense of necessity. > If it does not involve *some* sense of necessity, it cannot really be considered a type of logical reasoning. Probability will do for me, I am not wanting deductive certainty. But as far as I can see there is no logical form of induction that makes any conclusion more likely than not. -- dorayme
From: Zinnic on 17 Dec 2009 01:19 On Dec 17, 12:12 am, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > In article <hgbr3n$vn...(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > .. But as far as I can see there is no > logical form of induction that makes any conclusion more likely than > not. But as far as I can see there is no form of induction that is other than "more likely than not ". Please inform my naivette.
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 17 Dec 2009 04:22 On Dec 17, 9:02 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.net> wrote: > In article <doraymeRidThis-C6FF71.08455117122...(a)news.albasani.net>, > > > > dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > In article > > <fb79c657-8eb8-4910-b574-2679d3124...(a)g31g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, > > PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > The induction is the intuiting of a general rule from the particulars.. > > > In my mind this is what induction MEANS. It means more than just > > > saying that a pattern of particulars will continue to exhibit that > > > pattern. > > > > It is a *guess* of sorts, and this is what distinguishes it from being > > > a *deduction* from the particulars, > > > Yes, OK, you are talking psychology and human propensity, not logic. I > > was thinking more about the claim that it is a *logical* form of > > reasoning. > > Inductive reasoning/logic's utility is to determine whether something is > likely or unlikely true. It is a given that many people think there is a form of reasoning called induction and that it is something to do with how science goes somehow. And that it is something that humans use to determine the likelihood of things happening. But dorayme is questioning that it is any kind of logical reasoning as distinct from psychologically driven ways of thinking. In this, of course, he is no great pioneer, he had a most illustrious teacher from a few centuries back.
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 17 Dec 2009 04:27 On Dec 17, 5:19 pm, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > On Dec 17, 12:12 am, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote:> In article <hgbr3n$vn...(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > > . But as far as I can see there is no > > > logical form of induction that makes any conclusion more likely than > > not. > > But as far as I can see there is no form of induction that is other > than "more likely than not ". > Please inform my naivette. Yes, sure, one can enumerate past instances of something and couch the conclusion in cautious terms. This X was red, this Y was red..., therefore This Z will probably be red. But this would not change the problem of trying to justify that it is *logical* process. Anyone can say the latter train of thoughts, the question is what makes it a logical process rather than a description of how people behave.
From: jbriggs444 on 17 Dec 2009 08:44
On Dec 17, 4:27 am, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 17, 5:19 pm, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > > > On Dec 17, 12:12 am, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote:> In article <hgbr3n$vn...(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > > > . But as far as I can see there is no > > > > logical form of induction that makes any conclusion more likely than > > > not. > > > But as far as I can see there is no form of induction that is other > > than "more likely than not ". > > Please inform my naivette. The scenario of "it hurt when I put my hand on the stove" is not "more likely than not" but rather "more than negligibly likely". However, even that tentative probability estimate is good enough to act on and avoid putting your hand on the stove a second time. There's no 50/50 boundary condition on inductive reasoning. At least not in my book. Your definition may vary. > Yes, sure, one can enumerate past instances of something and couch the > conclusion in cautious terms. This X was red, this Y was red..., > therefore This Z will probably be red. But this would not change the > problem of trying to justify that it is *logical* process. Anyone can > say the latter train of thoughts, the question is what makes it a > logical process rather than a description of how people behave. Bayesian analysis? The fact that it is capable of generating a conclusion? (albeit an uncertain one) Anyway, why do you care whether inductive reasoning is or is not _called_ a "logical" process? It is what it is regardless of what it is called and regardless of which notional categories we choose to place it in or exclude it from. |