Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: Keth on 22 Dec 2009 11:03 On Dec 12, 9:01 pm, Immortalista <extro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > What is the justification for either: > > 1. generalising about the properties of a class of objects based on > some number of observations of particular instances of that class (for > example, the inference that "all swans we have seen are white, and > therefore all swans are white," before the discovery of black swans) > or > > 2. presupposing that a sequence of events in the future will occur as > it always has in the past (for example, that the laws of physics will > hold as they have always been observed to hold). > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction > > ------------------------------------------ > > Two views of Deduction & Induction: > > View 1: conclusion; > Deduction = infers particular from general truths > Induction = infers general from particular truths > > View 2: conclusion; > Deduction = follows with absolute necessity > Induction = follows with some degree of probability > > Deduction and Induction From > Introduction to Logic Irving M. Copihttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0130749214/ Both deduction and induction method are based on the underlying causations such as logics and physical laws. Some causations are of 100 percent certainty. For example, formal logics. We can safely use deduction to draw conclusion. Some causations are of high but less than 100 percent certainty. For example, most physical laws (except speed of light, etc) are near perfect but with deviations, thus we can use deduction to estimate the result, and it will not be 100 percent accurate. Cognitive causations are even lower certainty. Thus it is even less certain when we apply deduction method. As to induction, it is the first step in finding causation. It is the start before we can use deduction method.
From: Y.Porat on 22 Dec 2009 11:19 On Dec 22, 5:15 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 21, 4:33 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > In article > > <16d16b5b-83b8-4523-82fa-9d71f9c90...(a)v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > ... > > > > The theories are derived by the process of induction I described > > > earlier. Please see my earlier note about this. > > > I did see them and I commented on them. You are using the word induction > > to wave at roughly *whatever scientists do* and that is not really > > helpful. > > Oh, I think I was a little more elaborate than that. > > > > > > From these theories, predictions are *deduced* from the models. > > > > The experimental test involves neither deduction nor induction. It is > > > a simple comparison -- the prediction and the measurement overlap or > > > they don't. Period. > > > No. Deduction is involved. If have the theory that my kettle will always > > boil in under two minutes and I see it does not in certain conditions, > > it is a deductive matter that the generalisation is false. > > It is an experimental test of an induced generalization. > > > > > > Note, however, that a favorable bit of experimental evidence does not > > > allow you to *deduce* anything about the truth of the theory. You only > > > have a bit of experimental support. In science, nothing is ever > > > proven. In this sense, nothing is deductively certain, either. > > > It is the nature of this support that I am interested in. The > > traditional philosophical problem of induction in philosophy has been > > the difficulties with the idea that more and more cases consistent with > > a generalization go to more and more confirm that generalisation. I am > > denying this. > > And at no point does the generalization become completely confirmed. I > don't know what issue you have with this. > > A theory makes statements of this sort: > "We observe the pattern Y in circumstances A, B, and C. From this we > induce that there is a common principle P that will predict pattern Y > in circumstances A, B, and C. Furthermore this principle P also > predicts pattern X in untested circumstances D and E, and pattern W in > untested circumstances F, G, and H, and pattern V in untested > circumstances I, J, K, and L." Then science goes about the process of > locating or creating circumstances D through L. Every successful match > of a circumstance and the predicted pattern increases the confidence > in the induced principle P, even before all untested circumstances are > tested. And in fact, most models do not exhaust untested > circumstances, so there is always the opportunity to continue to test > the induced principle. ------------------ now Mr PD after all that remarkable impressive abstract knowledge about how theories and innovations are done what are the innovations that you did in physics ??? (actually that question could be directed to most people taking part in this learned discussion ) Y.Porat -------------------------
From: M Purcell on 22 Dec 2009 11:24 On Dec 22, 8:03 am, Keth <kethiswo...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Dec 12, 9:01 pm, Immortalista <extro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > What is the justification for either: > > > 1. generalising about the properties of a class of objects based on > > some number of observations of particular instances of that class (for > > example, the inference that "all swans we have seen are white, and > > therefore all swans are white," before the discovery of black swans) > > or > > > 2. presupposing that a sequence of events in the future will occur as > > it always has in the past (for example, that the laws of physics will > > hold as they have always been observed to hold). > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction > > > ------------------------------------------ > > > Two views of Deduction & Induction: > > > View 1: conclusion; > > Deduction = infers particular from general truths > > Induction = infers general from particular truths > > > View 2: conclusion; > > Deduction = follows with absolute necessity > > Induction = follows with some degree of probability > > > Deduction and Induction From > > Introduction to Logic Irving M. Copihttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0130749214/ > > Both deduction and induction method are based on the underlying > causations such as logics and physical laws. > > Some causations are of 100 percent certainty. For example, formal > logics. We can safely use deduction to draw conclusion. > > Some causations are of high but less than 100 percent certainty. For > example, most physical laws (except speed of light, etc) are near > perfect but with deviations, thus we can use deduction to estimate the > result, and it will not be 100 percent accurate. > > Cognitive causations are even lower certainty. Thus it is even less > certain when we apply deduction method. > > As to induction, it is the first step in finding causation. It is the > start before we can use deduction method. I would only like to add that it is our imaginations that induce a causation. However I don't believe induction can be confined to causal relationships, there are many types of relationships as Aristotle outlined.
From: Keth on 22 Dec 2009 11:30 On Dec 22, 11:24 am, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Dec 22, 8:03 am, Keth <kethiswo...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 12, 9:01 pm, Immortalista <extro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > What is the justification for either: > > > > 1. generalising about the properties of a class of objects based on > > > some number of observations of particular instances of that class (for > > > example, the inference that "all swans we have seen are white, and > > > therefore all swans are white," before the discovery of black swans) > > > or > > > > 2. presupposing that a sequence of events in the future will occur as > > > it always has in the past (for example, that the laws of physics will > > > hold as they have always been observed to hold). > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction > > > > ------------------------------------------ > > > > Two views of Deduction & Induction: > > > > View 1: conclusion; > > > Deduction = infers particular from general truths > > > Induction = infers general from particular truths > > > > View 2: conclusion; > > > Deduction = follows with absolute necessity > > > Induction = follows with some degree of probability > > > > Deduction and Induction From > > > Introduction to Logic Irving M. Copihttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0130749214/ > > > Both deduction and induction method are based on the underlying > > causations such as logics and physical laws. > > > Some causations are of 100 percent certainty. For example, formal > > logics. We can safely use deduction to draw conclusion. > > > Some causations are of high but less than 100 percent certainty. For > > example, most physical laws (except speed of light, etc) are near > > perfect but with deviations, thus we can use deduction to estimate the > > result, and it will not be 100 percent accurate. > > > Cognitive causations are even lower certainty. Thus it is even less > > certain when we apply deduction method. > > > As to induction, it is the first step in finding causation. It is the > > start before we can use deduction method. > > I would only like to add that it is our imaginations that induce a > causation. However I don't believe induction can be confined to causal > relationships, there are many types of relationships as Aristotle > outlined. I thought if B "always" follows A (or A-> B) then A->B is considered a causation. I do not agree that it is our imagination. There are times that B happens to follow A, but this is not considered a causation. This is the imagination that you are talking about. I personal believe that induction that is not based on solid causation cannot produce reliable conclusion. Could you list some of the thing that Aristotle outlined? Thanks!
From: M Purcell on 22 Dec 2009 12:14
On Dec 22, 8:30 am, Keth <kethiswo...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Dec 22, 11:24 am, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 22, 8:03 am, Keth <kethiswo...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 12, 9:01 pm, Immortalista <extro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > What is the justification for either: > > > > > 1. generalising about the properties of a class of objects based on > > > > some number of observations of particular instances of that class (for > > > > example, the inference that "all swans we have seen are white, and > > > > therefore all swans are white," before the discovery of black swans) > > > > or > > > > > 2. presupposing that a sequence of events in the future will occur as > > > > it always has in the past (for example, that the laws of physics will > > > > hold as they have always been observed to hold). > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction > > > > > ------------------------------------------ > > > > > Two views of Deduction & Induction: > > > > > View 1: conclusion; > > > > Deduction = infers particular from general truths > > > > Induction = infers general from particular truths > > > > > View 2: conclusion; > > > > Deduction = follows with absolute necessity > > > > Induction = follows with some degree of probability > > > > > Deduction and Induction From > > > > Introduction to Logic Irving M. Copihttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0130749214/ > > > > Both deduction and induction method are based on the underlying > > > causations such as logics and physical laws. > > > > Some causations are of 100 percent certainty. For example, formal > > > logics. We can safely use deduction to draw conclusion. > > > > Some causations are of high but less than 100 percent certainty. For > > > example, most physical laws (except speed of light, etc) are near > > > perfect but with deviations, thus we can use deduction to estimate the > > > result, and it will not be 100 percent accurate. > > > > Cognitive causations are even lower certainty. Thus it is even less > > > certain when we apply deduction method. > > > > As to induction, it is the first step in finding causation. It is the > > > start before we can use deduction method. > > > I would only like to add that it is our imaginations that induce a > > causation. However I don't believe induction can be confined to causal > > relationships, there are many types of relationships as Aristotle > > outlined. > > I thought if B "always" follows A (or A-> B) then A->B is considered a > causation. I do not agree that it is our imagination. Are you refering to a certain, somewhat certain, or less certain causation? I did not mean observations are products of our imaginations (although they occasionally are) but that any relationship originates in our imagination (such as gravity in Newton's imagination). However most such relationships are contradicted by observation and logic. > There are times that B happens to follow A, but this is not considered > a causation. This is the imagination that you are talking about. If B follows A then it is not unrealistic to wonder if it always does so and why. > I personal believe that induction that is not based on solid causation > cannot produce reliable conclusion. I believe you are refering to predictions. > Could you list some of the thing that Aristotle outlined? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categories_(Aristotle) For example, generalizations of size or color can be made. |