Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: dorayme on 14 Dec 2009 20:52 In article <daniel_t-EABA81.20233714122009(a)earthlink.us.supernews.com>, "Daniel T." <daniel_t(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > "That crow seems black" is not an argument of any sort. "I've asked 5 > people who saw the crow, and they all have said that it seemed black." > is an inductive argument. > > Again, maybe if you gave an example? > > I'm certainly willing to modify my position. Can you present an argument > (i.e., syllogism) that doesn't fit the assertion I made? I think there may be some miscommunication. It happens! You originally said: "... all deductive arguments rely on either arbitrary definitions or inductive arguments." and I accept that you are talking sound arguments meaning ones with true premises and successful (rather than purported) entailment. But arguments in logic or mathematics do not seem to me to have inductive elements. And as for arbitrary definitions, it is easy to say that we depend on these for nearly everything because out language symbols have a degree of arbitrariness about them. But apart from that the marks or sounds we use to convey meaning are arbitrary in this sense (eg. I could use 'foo' instead of 'cat') it seems false to me to say all arguments depend on induction or ese I don't really know what the claim is. -- dorayme
From: PD on 15 Dec 2009 09:47 On Dec 14, 4:36 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 15, 3:38 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Dec 12, 8:01 pm, Immortalista <extro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > The rationale for inductive reasoning is that it works expeditiously > > in matters of science. > > You seem unaware of the basic objection to this idea, namely that we > could only have confidence in it to the extent that we could be > confident that it go on working. And this latter is one of the main > problems in the idea of justifying induction in the first place. No, I get that. The scientific method and its use of induction does not have any a priori basis for inherent superiority. It is purely an operational observation, that the method when used in conjunction with experimental evidence does seem to produce better results more quickly than another investigative approach in that arena. I'm not saying that we know WHY this is so, from an epistemological perspective. It just historically is the case. PD
From: dorayme on 15 Dec 2009 16:47 In article <7bccfd7e-1bf2-4bfd-ac7a-a2ed65530dba(a)o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 14, 4:36 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Dec 15, 3:38 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 12, 8:01 pm, Immortalista <extro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > The rationale for inductive reasoning is that it works expeditiously > > > in matters of science. > > > > You seem unaware of the basic objection to this idea, namely that we > > could only have confidence in it to the extent that we could be > > confident that it go on working. And this latter is one of the main > > problems in the idea of justifying induction in the first place. > > No, I get that. The scientific method and its use of induction does > not have any a priori basis for inherent superiority. It is purely an > operational observation, that the method when used in conjunction with > experimental evidence does seem to produce better results more quickly > than another investigative approach in that arena. I'm not saying that > we know WHY this is so, from an epistemological perspective. It just > historically is the case. Some comments, if I may butt in <g>: 1. It is not easy to know what people on this usenet group quite mean by "induction". I am suspicious they might simply mean the hugely interesting-question begging idea of any reasoning that was *not* deductive! Equally unsatisfactory is it merely meaning something as vague as 'scientific method'. Just think about this, scientists use all kinds of reasoning, induction hardly begins to describe it! 2. For me, induction is a very simple thing, it is the argument form: X has happened N number of times in circumstance C therefore next time C happens, X will happen. A really really rotten argument form as Hume pointed out and as Bertrand Russell's chicken did not find out! <g> 3. You say that the method of induction "when used in conjunction with experimental evidence does seem to produce better results more quickly than another investigative approach in that arena" But notice how very vague this is. What counts as experimental *evidence*? What is the method of induction if it is not what I understand it to be? And, if it is what I understand it to be (see my 2 above), why is it at all valuable to observe that it has worked in the past? You would not observe and mention such if you did not think it was a *good* way of reasoning. In other words, you are not quite avoiding, as you imply, that it has an inherent superiority. -- dorayme
From: PD on 15 Dec 2009 17:47 On Dec 15, 3:47 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > In article > <7bccfd7e-1bf2-4bfd-ac7a-a2ed65530...(a)o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, > > > > PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On Dec 14, 4:36 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > On Dec 15, 3:38 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 12, 8:01 pm, Immortalista <extro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > The rationale for inductive reasoning is that it works expeditiously > > > > in matters of science. > > > > You seem unaware of the basic objection to this idea, namely that we > > > could only have confidence in it to the extent that we could be > > > confident that it go on working. And this latter is one of the main > > > problems in the idea of justifying induction in the first place. > > > No, I get that. The scientific method and its use of induction does > > not have any a priori basis for inherent superiority. It is purely an > > operational observation, that the method when used in conjunction with > > experimental evidence does seem to produce better results more quickly > > than another investigative approach in that arena. I'm not saying that > > we know WHY this is so, from an epistemological perspective. It just > > historically is the case. > > Some comments, if I may butt in <g>: > > 1. It is not easy to know what people on this usenet group quite mean by > "induction". I am suspicious they might simply mean the hugely > interesting-question begging idea of any reasoning that was *not* > deductive! > > Equally unsatisfactory is it merely meaning something as vague as > 'scientific method'. Just think about this, scientists use all kinds of > reasoning, induction hardly begins to describe it! I certainly agree with that. It's also a mistake, and a common one, that scientific knowledge gathering is "objective" rather than "subjective". There are lots of checks and balances that strive toward more objectivity, but it certainly isn't free from subjective certainty or knowledge gathering methods. > > 2. For me, induction is a very simple thing, it is the argument form: > > X has happened N number of times in circumstance C therefore next time C > happens, X will happen. A really really rotten argument form as Hume > pointed out and as Bertrand Russell's chicken did not find out! <g> Not from a scientific point of view. Induction involves the induction of a generalized rule that applies not only to the observed circumstances but to other circumstances as well. This is where its power comes from. As an example, it was noted that all objects near the surface of the Earth fall with an acceleration that is about 10 m/s/s. It was also noted that the Moon (which is not near the surface of the Earth) falls with an acceleration that is about 3600 times smaller. It was also noted that the Moon is about 60 times further away from the center of the Earth than objects near the surface of the Earth. It was also noted that for every force that object A exerts on B, there is an equal and opposite force that B exerts on A. From this there was a remarkable *induction* -- NOT a deduction -- that the force that is responsible for acceleration of both the Moon and of objects near the surface of the Earth follows the general rule: F = GMm/r^2. Now this is a powerful induction, because it applies to objects other than the ones near the surface of the Earth and at the Moon's distance. It in fact applies to objects falling toward bodies other than the Earth. It is the induction of a *general* rule from particulars that permits the experimental test. Because THEN you can say, "If this rule is right, then we should be able to predict the acceleration of each of the moons of Jupiter." And if that experimental test turns out well, then the confidence in the induction increases. > > 3. You say that the method of induction "when used in conjunction with > experimental evidence does seem to produce better results more quickly > than another investigative approach in that arena" But notice how very > vague this is. What counts as experimental *evidence*? What is the > method of induction if it is not what I understand it to be? And, if it > is what I understand it to be (see my 2 above), why is it at all > valuable to observe that it has worked in the past? You would not > observe and mention such if you did not think it was a *good* way of > reasoning. In other words, you are not quite avoiding, as you imply, > that it has an inherent superiority. > > -- > dorayme
From: M Purcell on 15 Dec 2009 18:21
On Dec 15, 1:47 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > Some comments, if I may butt in <g>: > > 1. It is not easy to know what people on this usenet group quite mean by > "induction". I am suspicious they might simply mean the hugely > interesting-question begging idea of any reasoning that was *not* > deductive! So you wish to argue against your suspicion of what someone else might mean by the word "induction"? Where you aware you are addressing five newsgroups? > Equally unsatisfactory is it merely meaning something as vague as > 'scientific method'. Just think about this, scientists use all kinds of > reasoning, induction hardly begins to describe it! I have never heard the "scientific method" equated with "induction" and I believe science uses the mathematical meaning of induction. > 2. For me, induction is a very simple thing, it is the argument form: > > X has happened N number of times in circumstance C therefore next time C > happens, X will happen. A really really rotten argument form as Hume > pointed out and as Bertrand Russell's chicken did not find out! <g> This is a simple overgeneralization, gotta watch out for those exceptions. But there are just so many times you need to check the cooking stove to see if it's hot. > 3. You say that the method of induction "when used in conjunction with > experimental evidence does seem to produce better results more quickly > than another investigative approach in that arena" But notice how very > vague this is. What counts as experimental *evidence*? What is the > method of induction if it is not what I understand it to be? And, if it > is what I understand it to be (see my 2 above), why is it at all > valuable to observe that it has worked in the past? You would not > observe and mention such if you did not think it was a *good* way of > reasoning. In other words, you are not quite avoiding, as you imply, > that it has an inherent superiority. Experimental evidence is obtained under controlled conditions in an effort to disprove a proposition. |