Induction v.s. Deduction

[Mike Hansen]

Hi Everybody,

What is the difference between inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning? Here's my current idea:

Induction: Start with specific idea. Look for general idea.

Deduction: Start with general idea. Look for specific idea.

Also, what are your thoughts on the derivation of Objectivism? Did Rand figure out her ethics because of her metaphysics & epistemology, or did she figure out her metaphysics & epistemology in order to support her ethics? Did she deduce her ethics, or induce her metaphysics and epistemology (using my definitions above)?

Mike

[BaalChatzaf]

Hi Everybody,

What is the difference between inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning? Here's my current idea:

Induction: Start with specific idea. Look for general idea.

Deduction: Start with general idea. Look for specific idea.

Also, what are your thoughts on the derivation of Objectivism? Did Rand figure out her ethics because of her metaphysics & epistemology, or did she figure out her metaphysics & epistemology in order to support her ethics? Did she deduce her ethics, or induce her metaphysics and epistemology (using my definitions above)?

Mike

The happy words are apriori and aposteriori. The first is inference from general principles the second is inference from particulars which are experienced. They correspond roughly to top-down and bottom-up, roughly.

Ethics is often treated apriori but in fact is derived aposeteriori. Our ethical sense derives from our particular life experiences.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Mike Hansen]

The happy words are apriori and aposteriori. The first is inference from general principles the second is inference from particulars which are experienced. They correspond roughly to top-down and bottom-up, roughly.

Ethics is often treated apriori but in fact is derived aposeteriori. Our ethical sense derives from our particular life experiences.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al

Your happy words clarified it well.

Thanks.

Mike

[Christopher]

This was not the way I thought about it. My understanding is that induction is taking in new knowledge, deduction is deducing facts from previously-gained knowledge.

Induction - Observation

Deduction - Includes most any theoretical prediction based on observation

Induction - apples falls!

Deduction - must be a force called gravity

Induction - planets rotate around the sun!

Deduction - planets must get captured by the gravitational pull of stars

Edited July 1, 2010 by Christopher

[dan2100]

The happy words are apriori and aposteriori. The first is inference from general principles the second is inference from particulars which are experienced. They correspond roughly to top-down and bottom-up, roughly.

Ethics is often treated apriori but in fact is derived aposeteriori. Our ethical sense derives from our particular life experiences.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al

Your happy words clarified it well.

Thanks.

Mike

My understanding of a priori and a posteriori is a bit different than deductive versus inductive -- at least as used by the philosophers I've read. In my view, the former have a relationship to experience whereas the latter do not -- or not in the same way. (Think of this. It's possible to inductively arrive at a general idea -- let's leave alone if it's valid or true -- and then deductively apply this same idea to a specific case. In which case, the general idea would be considered a posteriori -- even if one is later using it deductively.)

I think there's a general tendency to collapse a priori, deductive, analytic, and necessary together on one hand and a posteriori, inductive, synthetic, and contingent on the other. As you might guess, I believe this collapsing of all these ideas into two is mistaken.

Regarding Rand, one might consult Chris Sciabarra's Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical. If I recall correctly, he argues Rand came to ethical vision first and then searched around for a grouding for it. (There's nothing wrong about working this way -- provided one is willing to revise what one is attempting to ground in light of one's findings. If one isn't, then one is merely rationalizing one's ethics. I believe Answer to Ayn Rand by John W. Robbins accuses Rand of merely rationalizing her ethics -- as if this were ultimately primary and the rest of her philosophy is merely there to persuade her and us to accept her laundry list of moral claims.)

As for whether there are any a priori ethical claims, I believe Rand would rail against such a position. Many recent philosophers dealing with this area would disagree with her. They seem to believe there are a priori ethical claims and these inform how people deal with real life situations. I think Philippa Foot takes this position, but I'm getting this secondhand. I have yet to read any of her books and believe I only read one of her essays, but I forgot which one or what it was about.

[Christopher]

Regarding Rand, one might consult Chris Sciabarra's Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical. If I recall correctly, he argues Rand came to ethical vision first and then searched around for a grouding for it. (There's nothing wrong about working this way -- provided one is willing to revise what one is attempting to ground in light of one's findings. If one isn't, then one is merely rationalizing one's ethics. I believe Answer to Ayn Rand by John W. Robbins accuses Rand of merely rationalizing her ethics -- as if this were ultimately primary and the rest of her philosophy is merely there to persuade her and us to accept her laundry list of moral claims.)

This might explain some of Rand's contradictions. She might not have been explicitly following her premises because she had an interpretation of those premises beforehand that wasn't true to the letter of her word, so-to-speak.

Of course, nobody is a blank slate before they start laying out serious thoughts. Heck, Joseph Campbell would be the first to say we're not even born as blank slates!

[Dragonfly]

Induction - apples falls!

Deduction - must be a force called gravity

That's no deduction, it is a hypothesis that is arrived at inductively.

Induction - planets rotate around the sun!

Deduction - planets must get captured by the gravitational pull of stars.

Planets must nothing, this is again a hypothesis that is arrived at inductively. Deduction would for example be when you start with Newton's model for gravitational forces (inversely proportional with the distance between two massive bodies, etc.), then you can deduce mathematically that under certain conditions such bodies orbit each other, Kepler's laws, etc. It does of course make sense to look for a model with deducted properties that are confirmed by empirical evidence.

[Mike Hansen]

Okay guys. I looked the terms up in the dictionary, which I probably should have done in the first place.

Induction: any form of reasoning in which the conclusion, though supported by the premises, does not follow from them necessarily.

Deduction: a process of reasoning in which a conclusion follows necessarily from the premises presented, so that the conclusion cannot be false if the premises are true.

To figure something out via induction is akin to putting forth a hypothesis and then testing it empirically.

To figure something out via deduction is akin to finding & testing an answer with logic and the general principles of the situation.

Example: how much time will a 2 kg ball take to fall to the ground from a resting place 10 m high, and what is the ball's velocity just before striking the ground?

Deduction: use physical laws relating forces and acceleration, and conservation of energy.

Induction: dropping the ball and finding the time taken with a stopwatch and the end velocity with some sort of velocity finder. True to induction, the physical laws would support your conclusion, but your conclusion didn't require them.

Mike

[anthony]

Hi Everybody,

What is the difference between inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning? Here's my current idea:

Induction: Start with specific idea. Look for general idea.

Deduction: Start with general idea. Look for specific idea.

Also, what are your thoughts on the derivation of Objectivism? Did Rand figure out her ethics because of her metaphysics & epistemology, or did she figure out her metaphysics & epistemology in order to support her ethics? Did she deduce her ethics, or induce her metaphysics and epistemology (using my definitions above)?

Mike

As for the other part of your question, Rand did deduce her ethics from m. and e.

i.e. from the identification of the nature of Man, and his means to knowledge, is derived his morality. (What he is, so should he do, in a nutshell.)

Now, why do I feel that you already knew that?

[Mike Hansen]

Hi Everybody,

What is the difference between inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning? Here's my current idea:

Induction: Start with specific idea. Look for general idea.

Deduction: Start with general idea. Look for specific idea.

Also, what are your thoughts on the derivation of Objectivism? Did Rand figure out her ethics because of her metaphysics & epistemology, or did she figure out her metaphysics & epistemology in order to support her ethics? Did she deduce her ethics, or induce her metaphysics and epistemology (using my definitions above)?

Mike

As for the other part of your question, Rand did deduce her ethics from m. and e.

i.e. from the identification of the nature of Man, and his means to knowledge, is derived his morality. (What he is, so should he do, in a nutshell.)

Now, why do I feel that you already knew that?

Hah... when I said that in the other forum it got me thinking about whether or not she actually did start with metaphysics and epistemology first. Good catch, though .

Mike

[Christopher]

I stand corrected.

[dan2100]

Regarding Rand, one might consult Chris Sciabarra's Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical. If I recall correctly, he argues Rand came to ethical vision first and then searched around for a grouding for it. (There's nothing wrong about working this way -- provided one is willing to revise what one is attempting to ground in light of one's findings. If one isn't, then one is merely rationalizing one's ethics. I believe Answer to Ayn Rand by John W. Robbins accuses Rand of merely rationalizing her ethics -- as if this were ultimately primary and the rest of her philosophy is merely there to persuade her and us to accept her laundry list of moral claims.)

This might explain some of Rand's contradictions. She might not have been explicitly following her premises because she had an interpretation of those premises beforehand that wasn't true to the letter of her word, so-to-speak.

It might or it might not. Also, I want to stress that starting from a particular point is not necessarily wrong. One might start with what would appear to be a highly derived area of knowledge and work toward foundations or from foundations out to derivations. Nothing is wrong with this. Even so, if my reading of the history of thought is correct, often people who work first from foundations tend to ignore or reject derivations that don't fit often flippantly.

Of course, nobody is a blank slate before they start laying out serious thoughts.

If you merely mean by the time people get to considering philosophy they already have lots of intellectual baggage, I agree. This doesn't prevent them from, however, attempting a rational reconstruction of the current views.

Heck, Joseph Campbell would be the first to say we're not even born as blank slates!

If that was Campbell's view, I think Plato had him beat by many centuries. And Plato is hardly the only one to hold such a view. But what do you mean here? What do you think people bring to the table at birth? (I think there's some confusion here, especially since there's a great deal of confusion between things like an innate language ability and inborn concepts. This doesn't knock out the latter, but I see many today not separating the former from the latter and so believing any demonstration of the former validates the latter.)

[BaalChatzaf]

If that was Campbell's view, I think Plato had him beat by many centuries. And Plato is hardly the only one to hold such a view. But what do you mean here? What do you think people bring to the table at birth? (I think there's some confusion here, especially since there's a great deal of confusion between things like an innate language ability and inborn concepts. This doesn't knock out the latter, but I see many today not separating the former from the latter and so believing any demonstration of the former validates the latter.)

This point was clearly made in -The Meno- by Plato.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Christopher]

We don't need to go into the details. All of us seem to agree. Rational awareness cannot see behind the cloak of unconscious thinking, and that thinking massively influences our motivation to believe, disbelieve, or disregard information (with post-hoc rational justification).

[dan2100]

We don't need to go into the details. All of us seem to agree. Rational awareness cannot see behind the cloak of unconscious thinking, and that thinking massively influences our motivation to believe, disbelieve, or disregard information (with post-hoc rational justification).

But in what specific ways? Also, this is far different than the usual view offered up of innate ideas. I also wouldn't use it merely to explain away aspects of a given thinker you disagree with or for faults you find in a given system.

[Christopher]

But in what specific ways? Also, this is far different than the usual view offered up of innate ideas. I also wouldn't use it merely to explain away aspects of a given thinker you disagree with or for faults you find in a given system.

You're responding to the post out of context to the thread. I merely expanded on the suggestion that Rand had her ideas before she had her logic, which suggests that her ideas motivated the logic that support her premises. There is nothing unusual about this and I don't want to make it a big discussion. Sometimes people post comments as comments, not as the beginning of dissertations

[Xray]

Hi Everybody,

What is the difference between inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning? Here's my current idea:

Induction: Start with specific idea. Look for general idea.

Deduction: Start with general idea. Look for specific idea.

Also, what are your thoughts on the derivation of Objectivism? Did Rand figure out her ethics because of her metaphysics & epistemology, or did she figure out her metaphysics & epistemology in order to support her ethics? Did she deduce her ethics, or induce her metaphysics and epistemology (using my definitions above)?

Mike

As for the other part of your question, Rand did deduce her ethics from m. and e.

i.e. from the identification of the nature of Man, and his means to knowledge, is derived his morality. (What he is, so should he do, in a nutshell.)

Now, why do I feel that you already knew that?

But all this does not address the crucial question: was Rand right in her identification of the "nature of man"?

Suppose she made substantial errors? For example, in not taking empathy into account enough because she had problems with it?

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8817&pid=102133&st=60entry102133 (# 68)

Since Rand made claims regarding the correctness of her thinking, to be taken seriously as a philosopher, this called for a 'justification' via epistemology. The result was ITOE.

Imo there is no doubt that Rand did figure out her metaphysics and epistemology in order to support her ethics, an ethics she derived from her individual psychological structure - she was a hero worshipper ("Cyrus") - coupled with traumatic experiences she made with the political system in Russia.

This led her to reject any thought of serving others first as detrimental, and to uncritically advocate unbridled capitalism.

Edited July 3, 2010 by Xray

[anthony]

Hi Everybody,

What is the difference between inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning? Here's my current idea:

Induction: Start with specific idea. Look for general idea.

Deduction: Start with general idea. Look for specific idea.

Also, what are your thoughts on the derivation of Objectivism? Did Rand figure out her ethics because of her metaphysics & epistemology, or did she figure out her metaphysics & epistemology in order to support her ethics? Did she deduce her ethics, or induce her metaphysics and epistemology (using my definitions above)?

Mike

As for the other part of your question, Rand did deduce her ethics from m. and e.

i.e. from the identification of the nature of Man, and his means to knowledge, is derived his morality. (What he is, so should he do, in a nutshell.)

Now, why do I feel that you already knew that?

But all this does not address the crucial question: was Rand right in her identification of the "nature of man"?

Suppose she made substantial errors? For example, in not taking empathy into account enough because she had problems with it?

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8817&pid=102133&st=60entry102133 (# 68)

Since Rand made claims regarding the correctness of her thinking, to be taken seriously as a philosopher, this called for a 'justification' via epistemology. The result was ITOE.

Imo there is no doubt that Rand did figure out her metaphysics and epistemology in order to support her ethics, an ethics she derived from her individual psychological structure - she was a hero worshipper ("Cyrus") - coupled with traumatic experiences she made with the political system in Russia.

This led her to reject any thought of serving others first as detrimental, and to uncritically advocate unbridled capitalism.

Xray,

So what?

Which came first, chicken, or egg?

If Rand did indeed know where she was headed towards in her exposition of Metaphysics+Epistemology, she won't be the first genius scientist or philosopher who applied deduction and induction simultaneously.

Who raised an hypothesis, and 'back-engineered' the theory to see if it fits.

However, you can be damned sure that she would have checked, and double-checked, the results; Ayn Rand did not enjoy being proven wrong, it's obvious - but above all else, she loved the truth.

Her resultant Ethics stands as proof of that.

Tony

[Brant Gaede]

Since Rand made claims regarding the correctness of her thinking, to be taken seriously as a philosopher, this called for a 'justification' via epistemology. The result was ITOE.

Imo there is no doubt that Rand did figure out her metaphysics and epistemology in order to support her ethics, an ethics she derived from her individual psychological structure - she was a hero worshipper ("Cyrus") - coupled with traumatic experiences she made with the political system in Russia.

This led her to reject any thought of serving others first as detrimental, and to uncritically advocate unbridled capitalism.

What was there to figure out, basically? Reality is real and people can use their brains to understand it. The difficult part might be the epistemology to ethics to politics links, but the metaphysical-epistemological is almost as easy as pie. It's in the ethics material we have the big questions and problems, because the Objectivist ethics are not enough, being more incomplete than wrong.

Bridled capitalism: A profitable business based on free trade ridden by capitalists. Hi, yo!

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

Hi Everybody,

What is the difference between inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning? Here's my current idea:

Induction: Start with specific idea. Look for general idea.

Deduction: Start with general idea. Look for specific idea.

Also, what are your thoughts on the derivation of Objectivism? Did Rand figure out her ethics because of her metaphysics & epistemology, or did she figure out her metaphysics & epistemology in order to support her ethics? Did she deduce her ethics, or induce her metaphysics and epistemology (using my definitions above)?

Mike

As for the other part of your question, Rand did deduce her ethics from m. and e.

i.e. from the identification of the nature of Man, and his means to knowledge, is derived his morality. (What he is, so should he do, in a nutshell.)

Now, why do I feel that you already knew that?

But all this does not address the crucial question: was Rand right in her identification of the "nature of man"?

Suppose she made substantial errors? For example, in not taking empathy into account enough because she had problems with it?

http://www.objectivi...60entry102133 (# 68)

Since Rand made claims regarding the correctness of her thinking, to be taken seriously as a philosopher, this called for a 'justification' via epistemology. The result was ITOE.

Imo there is no doubt that Rand did figure out her metaphysics and epistemology in order to support her ethics, an ethics she derived from her individual psychological structure - she was a hero worshipper ("Cyrus") - coupled with traumatic experiences she made with the political system in Russia.

This led her to reject any thought of serving others first as detrimental, and to uncritically advocate unbridled capitalism.

Xray,

So what?

Which came first, chicken, or egg?

If Rand did indeed know where she was headed towards in her exposition of Metaphysics+Epistemology, she won't be the first genius scientist or philosopher who applied deduction and induction simultaneously.

Who raised an hypothesis, and 'back-engineered' the theory to see if it fits.

However, you can be damned sure that she would have checked, and double-checked, the results; Ayn Rand did not enjoy being proven wrong, it's obvious - but above all else, she loved the truth.

Her resultant Ethics stands as proof of that.

Tony

Rand's ethics lead to a fictional situation: Dagny shoots the guard, not because he is in the way, but because he cannot make up his mind. Some ethics that is.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anthony]

Ba'al ,

I'm beginning to think that XRay, and now you, should concentrate on Rand's NON-fiction.

You do understand 'poetic licence' don't you?

Especially from an author steeped in the Russian and French dramatic tradition.

It isn't so much what her characters did and didn't do, it's their sense of life and uncompromising individualism that is best recalled by most readers, imo.

The characters serve as inspiration, not blueprints for one's life, or one's morality.

Pardon me, but it gets a bit tiring seeing Rand constantly being set up as a 'strawman' by snippets from her fiction, or her personal life.

I know one thing: if she were alive, her intellect would blow all of us out of the water. B)

Tony

[BaalChatzaf]

Ba'al ,

I'm beginning to think that XRay, and now you, should concentrate on Rand's NON-fiction.

You do understand 'poetic licence' don't you?

Especially from an author steeped in the Russian and French dramatic tradition.

It isn't so much what her characters did and didn't do, it's their sense of life and uncompromising individualism that is best recalled by most readers, imo.

The characters serve as inspiration, not blueprints for one's life, or one's morality.

Pardon me, but it gets a bit tiring seeing Rand constantly being set up as a 'strawman' by snippets from her fiction, or her personal life.

I know one thing: if she were alive, her intellect would blow all of us out of the water. B)

Tony

1. I am genetically incapable of understanding what you Normals call poetic license. I interpret what I read literally unless I am instructed otherwise by the author. That is one of the blessings of being an Aspie.

2. Rand's intellect not only could not blow me out of the water (assuming I were in the water in the first place), her intellect could not even rock my boat (metaphorically). I am a hard wired mathematician (metaphorically, since my organic makeup does not really consist of wires which are metallic). I yield only to better mathematicians and theoretical physicists.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited July 4, 2010 by BaalChatzaf

[anthony]

Ba'al ,

I'm beginning to think that XRay, and now you, should concentrate on Rand's NON-fiction.

You do understand 'poetic licence' don't you?

Especially from an author steeped in the Russian and French dramatic tradition.

It isn't so much what her characters did and didn't do, it's their sense of life and uncompromising individualism that is best recalled by most readers, imo.

The characters serve as inspiration, not blueprints for one's life, or one's morality.

Pardon me, but it gets a bit tiring seeing Rand constantly being set up as a 'strawman' by snippets from her fiction, or her personal life.

I know one thing: if she were alive, her intellect would blow all of us out of the water. B)

Tony

1. I am genetically incapable of understanding what you Normals call poetic license. I interpret what I read literally unless I am instructed otherwise by the author. That is one of the blessings of being an Aspie.

2. Rand's intellect not only could not blow me out of the water (assuming I were in the water in the first place), her intellect could not even rock my boat (metaphorically). I am a hard wired mathematician (metaphorically, since my organic makeup does not really consist of wires which are metallic). I yield only to better mathematicians and theoretical physicists.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al,

I am mortally offended to be called a Normal.

You are addressing a full-on, card-carrying, ADD member, here.

When it was finally diagnosed - at my wife's insistence - it answered all my early confusions and screw-ups.

Lack of focus for extended periods, but with the compensation of what shrinks call 'hyperfocus' for short periods.

Supposedly shared by such luminaries as Mozart and Churchill, it still isn't much of a pleasure to deal with (especially by a wife.)

Nor is Asperges' Syndrome, from what I know, but as you say, there are such compensations as your elevated math ability...but I'm not so sure about the literalism.

Call me anything you want - but please, not Normal!

Tony

[BaalChatzaf]

Call me anything you want - but please, not Normal!

Tony

Are you aware that ADD is treatable? 99 percent of the world is neurotypical, hence my error. My apologies.

Even so, Rand is on the hook for every word she wrote, just as you and I are. Her notions of ethics leads to some peculiar results. To the extent that Rand transmitted her ethics to her followers in the Movement, one can conclude there is something a bit askew. Look at how the shi'ite Objectivists treat each other. Is that an example of their ethics?

Here are the facts: ethics is bottom up. One learns an ethical system by the effects of habit and experience. Principles are a result of experience, not the determiner of experience. One can learn to be an ethical person by following a simple guideline -- don't do anything to others you don't want them to do to you. On the other hand don't be a doormat. Everything else is in the details. One learns by doing. Aristotle believed that the Virtues are acquired by habit and doing, not by philosophical contemplation of principles. See Nichomachian Ethics by Mr. A.

R. Hillel summed it up very well in Perke Avot (sayings of the sages)

If I am not for myself, who is for me?

If I am only for myself, what am I?

If not now, then when?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[9thdoctor]

Rand's ethics lead to a fictional situation: Dagny shoots the guard, not because he is in the way, but because he cannot make up his mind. Some ethics that is.

In We The Living Kira is shown taking part in the family business, which at that point was stuffing sugar cubes into bottles. The labels say 100, and they intentionally put only 87 in. I want to know how anyone can claim to uphold honesty as a virtue while depicting their quasi-autobiographical fictional heroine doing that.

2. Rand's intellect not only could not blow me out of the water (assuming I were in the water in the first place), her intellect could not even rock my boat (metaphorically). I am a hard wired mathematician (metaphorically, since my organic makeup does not really consist of wires which are metallic). I yield only to better mathematicians and theoretical physicists.

I know you don’t care much about how you come across, but FYI, this makes you look like a braying, strutting ass. And I usually enjoy your posts, FWIW. Helpful feedback, I hope.