Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: Keth on 22 Dec 2009 22:43 > > > > 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. > > Who told you that fairy tale? > > Correlation and causation are not the same thing. Not even if they > happen to be observed in some particular order. Not even if the > correlation is remarkable. > There's a reason for randomly selected samples, double blind trials > and confidence testing. Causation has strict order, correlation does not. In causation timing is critical. If B always "follows" A with a observable time delay, then it is a strong candidate of causation. In correlation, A and B often appear together, but B does not always follow A. Sometimes A follows B, sometimes B follows A, sometimes they appear concurrently. One exception to the rule is logical causation and mathematical causation, which does not involve time. Logical and mathematical causation are formative translations. For example, 2+2=4 and AUB=BUA do not involve time. Strictly speaking these are not causation since there is no time delay. But since they can be used in deductive method, we often treat them as causation with time delay of 0. e.g. Since A+B=B+A and A*B=B*A, therefore C+(B*A)=(A*B)+C > > I personal believe that induction that is not based on solid causation > > cannot produce reliable conclusion. > > I think I agree with what I think you're trying to say, but I'd still > like you to say it correctly. It's something like "I believe that the > Universe is weird but not that it is malicious", yes? Thats why we have dialog to clarify potential confusions.
From: dorayme on 22 Dec 2009 17:48 In article <0d8d5bc2-e1d3-4c3d-a9b6-7cd85bc80e2c(a)a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, PD <thedraperfamily(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. > It is a well trodden track to say what scientists do. They do a lot of things. The sentences are trotted out constantly. They gather data, they test ... etc etc... You have not focussed and identified a form of argument that is an *inductive* form of argument. It is useless these days (because it is so constantly and well documented) to repeat what scientists do. You seem not to be at all aware or troubled by the questions that engaged Hume? You seem to just think basically there is no philospohical problem of induction? Why is there this term induction if all you are going to do is talk about various diverse practices scientist engage in. If you really think there is some form of reasoning (that is not the one I gave earlier, a clear and easily identified one) that can be contrasted with deduction, then what is it? > > > > > 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. These are just vague words. "induced generalization" indeed! Deduction is used to get a testable proposition. If it is found to be untrue then that affects (in a perfectly deductive manner) the truth of the proposition from which it is deduced. It is ironical that in another post you accuse me of not understanding deduction and yet I am the one who is always explaining it and you who say almost nothing about its mechanism. > > > > > > 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. > The issue is that you are assuming there is something useful and rational called confirmation. It is simply untrue. The heads that comes up 5 times in a row does not confirm that it will come up a sixth time. It is not absolute certainty that is being sought, it is that the alleged process of arguing by induction does not seem the least bit reasonable. > 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 This induction is a description of a psychological step. It is like saying to a kid, look at this and this and this and this and now, "What is common to these things". That is just an exhortation to come up with ideas. If they come up with 20 different ones, they have different "inductions"? The different kids induce different things. There is no *logical reasoning* in this stage. It is mere exercise of our pattern recognition abilities, our creativity is involved. The interesting questions are what is to be done with these ideas. Is this also part of so called induction? > that will predict pattern Y > in circumstances A, B, and C. OK, it is complex pattern recognition! I accept this. > 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. .... You can get as complex and detailed as you like in describing what scientists do, fine. No essential dispute from me. Not in general. Let's say there is a really fine and accurate description of what scientis actually do somewhere. Why, and this is essentially Hume's question and a good one, is there any reason to suppose that these procedures will continue to lead us to knowledge. What is it about them or the context in which they are take place (and this is dorayme) that makes it good reasoning. After all, with deduction there cannot ever come a time when a good deductive argument has true premises and false conclusion. -- dorayme
From: Michael Gordge on 22 Dec 2009 18:26 On Dec 23, 12:09 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > What models in science do you take to be certain? You need to check your premises, why are you asking me that question when you have said there is nothing you can prove about science? You have judged yourself as incapable of validating / proving anything about science. Its your idea that nothing in science is ever proven, therefore you cant ever prove that about science, in other words its idiotic arbitrary Kantian diatribe. MG
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 22 Dec 2009 19:24 On Dec 22, 11:54 pm, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > I am well aware of the difference between probability and statistics > and realize you don't know what you are talking about. Look it up for > yourself. No, you don't know this at all and here you are refusing to answer a polite question. I gave you a detailed example of a probability argument. I asked you for your version of a typical statistical argument (that, presumably cannot be analysed in terms of a probability argument) and what do you do, you show your true colours and get insulting. In a discussion about induction and deduction, the details matter. Your vague hand waving will get you nowohre, but presumably it will impress the basketweavers around here and various other thugs and sexists mugs.
From: M Purcell on 22 Dec 2009 19:37
On Dec 22, 4:24 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 22, 11:54 pm, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > I am well aware of the difference between probability and statistics > > and realize you don't know what you are talking about. Look it up for > > yourself. > > No, you don't know this at all and here you are refusing to answer a > polite question. I gave you a detailed example of a probability > argument. I asked you for your version of a typical statistical > argument (that, presumably cannot be analysed in terms of a > probability argument) and what do you do, you show your true colours > and get insulting. In a discussion about induction and deduction, the > details matter. Your vague hand waving will get you nowohre, but > presumably it will impress the basketweavers around here and various > other thugs and sexists mugs. Presumably you now realize probability is used in statistics. |