Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: dorayme on 16 Dec 2009 16:45 In article <fb79c657-8eb8-4910-b574-2679d31240d1(a)g31g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, PD <thedraperfamily(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. -- dorayme
From: PD on 16 Dec 2009 16:52 On Dec 16, 3:45 pm, 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. Induction IS a form of logic. It appears that what you consider logic is *constrained* to be either deduction or a rather narrow assumption that a pattern observed will continue to be observed (and the latter isn't really "logic" in the sense you give the word, either). Induction in the mathematical sense is a form of *deduction* in the scientific science, because the conclusion is a *necessary* consequence of the premises. Induction in the scientific sense does not involve that sense of necessity.
From: dorayme on 16 Dec 2009 17:00 In article <bc3b2827-08ec-43d5-98cf-391994bc3bf5(a)e7g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 16, 3:45 pm, 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. > > Induction IS a form of logic. I have yet to see what form it has or understand this. I have fully understood your psychological remarks and agree with them. > It appears that what you consider logic > is *constrained* to be either deduction Yes, this part is true > or a rather narrow assumption > that a pattern observed will continue to be observed (and the latter > isn't really "logic" in the sense you give the word, either). Not quite sure about this part though, it seems unclear to me. I would think that if something is logical then there must be some rule like ways about it. There seems nothing particularly clearly rule like about the psychological processes you describe. -- dorayme
From: John Stafford on 16 Dec 2009 17:02 In article <doraymeRidThis-C6FF71.08455117122009(a)news.albasani.net>, dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > In article > <fb79c657-8eb8-4910-b574-2679d31240d1(a)g31g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, > PD <thedraperfamily(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.
From: Les Cargill on 16 Dec 2009 18:39
PD wrote: > On Dec 16, 3:45 pm, 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. > > Induction IS a form of logic. It appears that what you consider logic > is *constrained* to be either deduction or a rather narrow assumption > that a pattern observed will continue to be observed (and the latter > isn't really "logic" in the sense you give the word, either). > > Induction in the mathematical sense is a form of *deduction* in the > scientific science, because the conclusion is a *necessary* > consequence of the premises. Induction in the scientific sense does > not involve that sense of necessity. Mathematical induction is only used to extend the principle being discussed to all the natural numbers. It doesn't map to what people call "induction" outside of mathematics. -- Les Cargill |