Two Kinds of "Induction": Important similarities and trivial differences

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

John,

I do not know Mill's work very much, but I will look into it. Every argument I have read so far against induction being scientifically valid rests on deduction to be "conclusive." No matter what the argument is, it boils down to that. Then we have the statement by Dragonfly and others that "analytic statements" (i.e., deductive logic being one such type) have nothing to do with reality. Using those two points as premises, on the standard of deductive logic alone they are painted into a corner. How can you validate something from reality with a process if it that process has no relationship to reality?

I vastly prefer the approach David Kelley has used so far, validating induction with deduction and validating deduction with induction in return. The two are not standalone for scientific validation. They work together. (This is apparently very difficult for Ellen to understand in my writing, but thank goodness respectable people hold to this, also, and, apropos, the scientific community even runs on it. I have no doubt she could read the exact same words I have written, but written by some of those people, without realizing that they were the same words, and understand them perfectly.)

To go back to a more humorous vein, if a person saw a tiger charging at him in a targeted manner in the jungle, I have no doubt he would find the danger of being eaten conclusive (and you can add 100% conclusive to that with no doubts whatsoever), although pure deduction was not involved. Most of what he sees in that case is processed by induction. In fact, his life would depend on his not having any doubts and he can later test the so-called theory of being eaten by a tiger charging at him for all it's worth if he likes.

Michael

[John Dailey]

Dragon:

~ I shan't quote your post #401 (replying to Baal), but, it certainly sounds like you're arguing that a given 'statement' can be seen as either 'analytic' or 'synthetic'...all depending upon (ready?) the 'context' it's used in. --- The statement 'can' mean this, or, it 'can' mean that. Hmmmm....

~ Your start-off with the idea of 'Not necessarily' raises the question of logical 'falsifiability' and 'analyticity' being applicable to all statements re the whole subject-discussion, methinks. --- Yet, no one thinks to 'analyze' the pertinence of THOSE, it seems.

LLAP

J:D

Edited October 13, 2007 by John Dailey

[John Dailey]

~ Ellen says...

If the claim is that induction exists as a valid method and that it's the method science actually uses, the claim is false.

~ Assuming that Ellen means by 'induction' nothing more than Hume's simplistic 'generalizing' which he argued as being not sensorially-PERCEIVED, ergo, it was useless as a method-of-thinking, even there I disagree. Simple generalizing is always used as a part of scientific attempts at predicting anything, especially including what test instruments to build to test hypothesis 'X.' Indeed, it's used by all of us regarding most subjects including interacting with others in this cyberspace. If scientists ignore generalizing, period, they're no diff from voodoo witch-doctors.

LLAP

J:D

[John Dailey]

~ Given Ellen's assertion, indeed, I must ask, how has such a claim that 'the claim is false' been...deduced? Certainly not by reading what scientist say they 'do'...since they never 'do' thinking about their actual mental procedures (other than the rare likes of Feynman); they just 'do' the science stuff, the math, the lab-work, etc...like drones. --- Think about it; how many scientists (theoretical or applied/math or field) talk about their actual 'thinking' in what they do and not merely what they're physically...'doing'?.

LLAP

J:D

[John Dailey]

gs:

~ In your post #415, quoting my response to my quoting Dragonfly, you ask...

What does 'correct' mean in this context...how is one to know the theory is 'correct'?

~ Ask Dragon. He used the term 1st. I presumed a same meaning, but, you may show otherwise; feel free to argue such (but not just raise questions for the pure hell-of-it, puh-leeze). --- Re your concern about 'context'... ...funny how THAT word's been popping up lately.

LLAP

J:D

Edited October 13, 2007 by John Dailey

[John Dailey]

Baal:

~ Thank you for clarifying that Newton had no 'theory' (worth calling such, anyways) of gravity.

LLAP

J:D

[Daniel Barnes]

Mike:

Every argument I have read so far against induction being scientifically valid rests on deduction to be "conclusive."

Arguments by whom? Where? You've read my arguments, for example. I've never said any such thing. Who said anything about induction being "scientifically" invalid? It's logically invalid.

"Induction" (in the standard sense of the word) is illogical. From this it does not follow that deductive logic is conclusive. (other than in the trivial sense of reaching a logical conclusion). It's an non-sequitur!

One day perhaps you will understand the issue you have spend so many posts opining on. Why not stop writing for a bit and actually do some reading, so you can be taken seriously on this.

No matter what the argument is, it boils down to that.

Only in your mind!

Then we have the statement by Dragonfly and others that "analytic statements" (i.e., deductive logic being one such type) have nothing to do with reality. Using those two points as premises, on the standard of deductive logic alone they are painted into a corner. How can you validate something from reality with a process if it that process has no relationship to reality?

Actually it's completely consistent. It's you who needs the lessons in logic!

I vastly prefer the approach David Kelley has used so far, validating induction with deduction and validating deduction with induction in return.

Kelley's monograph is not complete, so it is hard to judge, but from what I have seen so far his argument is no less feeble than Peikoff's.

The two are not standalone for scientific validation. They work together. (This is apparently very difficult for Ellen to understand in my writing, but thank goodness respectable people hold to this, also, and, apropos, the scientific community even runs on it. I have no doubt she could read the exact same words I have written, but written by some of those people, without realizing that they were the same words, and understand them perfectly.)

Well, if "respectable people" say something it must be true then!

To go back to a more humorous vein, if a person saw a tiger charging at him in a targeted manner in the jungle, I have no doubt he would find the danger of being eaten conclusive (and you can add 100% conclusive to that with no doubts whatsoever), although pure deduction was not involved. Most of what he sees in that case is processed by induction. In fact, his life would depend on his not having any doubts and he can later test the so-called theory of being eaten by a tiger charging at him for all it's worth if he likes.

There is nothing whatsoever "inductive" about the above. You don't know what you're talking about.

Edited October 13, 2007 by Daniel Barnes

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Arguments by whom? Where? You've read my arguments, for example. I've never said any such thing. Who said anything about induction being "scientifically" invalid? It's [logically invalid.

Daniel,

Ellen just did. I'm sorry. I thought you read her posts and agreed with them. My mistake.

Also, I will have to reread some Popper, but I believe I read that falsifiability is based on deduction (if there is one exception then the whole theory is invalid).

There is nothing whatsoever "inductive" about the above. You don't know what you're talking about.

The rest of your post is simple unsupported opinions that do not need addressing, but this above one is too false to let pass by. A person has seen a charging tiger eat other animals many times in films, on TV and reported over his lifetime. Through induction this person is 100% certain that the charging tiger will eat him. Pure induction.

You see? I do know what I am talking about. I know it hurts, but deal with it.

I have to bow out again for a while. I'm not getting my normal work done. We are doing our damnedest to metaphorically imitate what a perpetual motion machine would be like. Or Alice in front of the Red Queen: the faster she runs, the more she stays in place.

Michael

[John Dailey]

Baal:

~ Re your post #419 in response to my post-question (to Dragonfly) in #418...

...huh?

~ You imply that 'analytic' and 'synthetic' divisional-concerns do NOT apply to...'metalanguage', correct? Or, if they do, you've elucidated nothing and merely added confusions re my questions.

Dragon:

~ Re your post # 420 in response to my post-question (to you) in #418...

...quite a thought-provoking lecture. But, about my questions...I see nothing relevent anymore than in Baal's response.

LLAP

J:D

Edited October 13, 2007 by John Dailey

[BaalChatzaf]

Also, I will have to reread some Popper, but I believe I read that falsifiability is based on deduction (if there is one exception then the whole theory is invalid).

It is. The logical rule is modus tolens. If A -> B and -B then -A.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[John Dailey]

MSK:

~ I can't say that *I* know Mill's work all that much; but one thing I DO know: he showed that he had more practically-useful worthwhileness to say about 'induction' in practical and scientific thinking/application than anyone in this thread (other than me) seems to even be barely aware of, especially those who (de-ducedly?) argue against its applicability in anything. Hume wrote about 'induction', ergo, all was supposedly said and done with and by him...he who admitted that he never could 'see' it! --- Cripes. I'm sure he never sensorially-perceived (saw) his 'concepts' or 'arguments' or 'logical connections' either, ergo...what worth paying attention to such non-sensorial imaginings of his? There's a strange (stolen-concept) anti-mind bias in this thread, methinks.

LLAP

J:D

[Daniel Barnes]

Mike:

Ellen just did. I'm sorry.

No, that's only because you don't understand the argument she's making!

Also, I will have to reread some Popper, but I believe I read that falsifiability is based on deduction (if there is one exception then the whole theory is invalid).

So what?

The rest of your post is simple unsupported opinions that do not need addressing, but this above one is too false to let pass by. A person has seen a charging tiger eat other animals many times in films, on TV and reported over his lifetime. Through induction this person is 100% certain that the charging tiger will eat him. Pure induction. You see? I do know what I am talking about. I know it hurts, but deal with it.

The only thing that hurts is watching you make a fool of yourself time after time on this subject. You're a talented writer when you put your mind to it, but here you are merely clowning. Stick with topics you know something about.

Why? Because even granting your premisses - which you've added arbitrarily anyway - there's nothing "inductive" about having seen a tiger eat something on TV, and then guessing the same might happen to you in similar circumstances. This is just another case of you not knowing what you're talking about. Further, your argument collapses because the tiger might not eat him after all. You can even "inductively" infer that from reading "Androcles and the Lion" X number of times until you're supposedly "100% certain" that it won't.

I have to bow out again for a while.

Take my advice, don't bow in again until you have Clue 1 as to what it is you're opining on.

Edited October 13, 2007 by Daniel Barnes

[John Dailey]

A CONSIDERATION:

~ Remember 'The Challenger' (10th mission) disaster?

~ What was the 'cause' of it? 'O-Rings', right? Anyone (other than conspiracy-enthusiasts) got a prob with that (other than purely hypothetical, that is)?

~ Richard Feynman (may that great mind R.I.P.-- hopefully there's a 'Limbo' where he can discuss things with Socrates, DaVinci, Rand, et al) pinned down the 'cause', did he not? As a result, blame went to some decision-makers and heads rolled...and, procedures changed.

~ Should they have (rolled AND changed)? If so, the only reason arguable is because of R. Feynman's...INDUCTION. Who is ready to argue that? Yet, if not...

~ If not, why not?

~ Think about it.

LLAP

J:D

Edited October 13, 2007 by John Dailey

[John Dailey]

~ Speaking of Feynman's conclusions, I wonder what Popper would have thought of such? Were they 'scientific', or, were they...something other? In concluding what he did, was Feynman 'doing what scientists "do"'? Or...was he, like Einstein sometimes did, working OUTSIDE of his 'science' field? He was a 'thinker', that's for sure.

~ Hmmm....

LLAP

J:D

Edited October 13, 2007 by John Dailey

[BaalChatzaf]

A CONSIDERATION:

~ Remember 'The Challenger' (10th mission) disaster?

~ What was the 'cause' of it? 'O-Rings', right? Anyone (other than conspiracy-enthusiasts) got a prob with that (other than purely hypothetical, that is)?

~ Richard Feynman (may that great mind R.I.P.-- hopefully there's a 'Limbo' where he can discuss things with Socrates, DaVinci, Rand, et al) pinned down the 'cause', did he not? As a result, blame went to some decision-makers and heads rolled...and, procedures changed.

~ Should they have (rolled AND changed)? If so, the only reason arguable is because of R. Feynman's...INDUCTION. Who is ready to argue that? Yet, if not...

~ If not, why not?

~ Think about it.

LLAP

J:D

Feynman showed one possible cause for the O-ring failure. There might have been others, embrittlement due to cold is very plausible. And the word you want is not induction, but empirical. He showed an instance of embrittlement.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[John Dailey]

Baal:

~ Yes, that's what he concretely, empirically 'showed', physically 'demonstrated', on the counter in the panel-presentation broadcast globally. Must we therefore, refrain from saying that he 'argued' more, MUCH more, than merely that, and that he thereby did no more than (as you innuend all that he did) a mere 'show-and-tell' for a classroom about a 'now-here' physical lab-trick? I mean, you make such sound as if he wasn't talking about the Challenger disaster...at all. --- Let's give him a bit more credit than getting wrapped up in a vain 'look what I can do on TV' concern, as if such was an irrelevent sidelight to the Challenger's disaster-cause. He was 'demonstrating' the prob with the Challenger, fer Pete's sakes.

~ I gather that such as he did was irrelevent, by your lights, as to why procedures changed. In that case, you would argue that they changed because...???

LLAP

J:D

Edited October 13, 2007 by John Dailey

[Ellen Stuttle]

Dragon:

~ Re your post # 420 in response to my post-question (to you) in #418...

...quite a thought-provoking lecture. But, about my questions...I see nothing relevent anymore than in Baal's response.

I recommend thinking about it until you see it. It is logically inconsistent (A & non-A) to claim certainty for one's empirical generalizations. To claim such would be to claim omniscience. Another way of saying this: To know that you'd added it all up right empirically, you'd have to be here to do the adding after it was all over; but if you were here, it wouldn't all be over. QED. (Both these ways of saying it have been used at least since the time of responses to Laplace's thought experiment of a being with perfect knowledge of the laws of nature.)

The problem of induction is, When do you know your empirical generalizations are correct? (That's how AR states the problem as well, btw.) The answer is, You don't, ever. That's actually the same answer Leonard Peikoff gives; only he calls never being sure "contextual certainty."

Ellen

PS: I think maybe where you're getting thrown off is in meaning, when you say "induction," what your responders are calling hypotheses or conjectures, and in mixing up solving a particular problem (such as Feynman re the O rings) with establishing the truth of an empirical generalization (a universalized quantified statement). Even the conservation laws, the bedrock bedrock of modern physics, aren't known for certain to be true. They're more in the nature of postulates. It would take a huge cataclysm of counter-evidence before they'd be considered falsified; but they aren't actually known to be true.

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

Simple generalizing is always used as a part of scientific attempts at predicting anything, especially including what test instruments to build to test hypothesis 'X.' Indeed, it's used by all of us regarding most subjects including interacting with others in this cyberspace. If scientists ignore generalizing, period, they're no diff from voodoo witch-doctors.

John, being used as part of a thinking process is not the issue; the issue is validation, i.e., proof (that's the sense in which "validation" was being used) that one's generalization is correct, that it holds, always has held, always will hold without exception. Validating is what we're talking about, not coming up with leads and theories in the first place.

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

~ Given Ellen's assertion, indeed, I must ask, how has such a claim that 'the claim is false' been...deduced? Certainly not by reading what scientist say they 'do'...since they never 'do' thinking about their actual mental procedures (other than the rare likes of Feynman); they just 'do' the science stuff, the math, the lab-work, etc...like drones. --- Think about it; how many scientists (theoretical or applied/math or field) talk about their actual 'thinking' in what they do and not merely what they're physically...'doing'?.

You mean they don't talk about it where you've seen them talking? Apparently I have a lot more empirical evidence than you have. ;-) Drones, indeed. Some of them are just cut and dry, "technocrats" going about their work, using the formalisms. Not ones likely to make much of a splash, however.

Ellen

Note: I think the inflection with which I meant the comment "Drones, indeed" might not have come through. I wasn't agreeing with but instead sort of snorting at the idea that drone-like-ness is a prevalent characteristic among scientists.

___

Edited October 14, 2007 by Ellen Stuttle

[Ellen Stuttle]

Kelley's monograph is not complete, so it is hard to judge, but from what I have seen so far his argument is no less feeble than Peikoff's.

That's interesting. I haven't seen the monograph, but I wouldn't expect David to be overly enlightening on the subject -- with all due credit to David's intellect, but science isn't his...native territory, shall we say.

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

~ Can someone point me to finding where Sir Isaac Newton spelled out a 'theory' of gravity? I'm a bit perplexed on this. I thought he (as many pre-Einstein) had a real prob re this 'action-at-a-distance' situation (re 'explaining' it), and that what he said about gravity merely described how it worked...not why it worked as it did, in his mathematical elucidations.

LLAP

J:D

For Gravity (its causes) Newton famously said -- I feign no hypothesis. In short, Newton gave a law which describes the mutual gravitational force that bodies exert on each other, his famous inverse square law, but said not a word concerning the causes of gravitation.

Ba'al Chatzaf

He famously said it ("Hypotheses non fingo"), but he'd have been wise to take his editor Robert Cotes' advice and leave the statement out of the Second Edition (1713) of The Principia. Cotes and others had already noticed by then that Newton did "feign" hypotheses, even in the section wherein he claimed not to do so.

It's a bigger example similar to Rand's including that paragraph sweeping aside the is/ought problem. She'd have spared a lot of dispute and confusion if she just hadn't included the paragraph. Newton -- if he hadn't been too pig-headed to heed his editor's advice -- would have spared reams of analysis of what he meant ("fingo" being an odd word, for one thing, and maybe idiosyncratic to Newton's Latin) and debate as to whether or not he indeed did "fingo."

There's a very interesting discussion of all of this in Cohen and Whitman's 1999 re-translation of and lengthy commentary upon The Principia, but I haven't time for typing that in.

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

~ Re this whole 'flat earth' idea, was it ever really a 'theory' (in the present-day sense we mean by that term; you know, beyond hypothesis via containing predictability)?

It wasn't a theory in the sense in which we speak of theories in science, no -- a formalized, explicitly stated explanatory hypothesis. Popper, however -- and I was using the term "theory" in his sense of the term -- speaks of everything we do cognitively including perception as being "theory-laden." I quite agree, thought so myself years and years before I learned that Popper thought that.

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

I have been stressing 'applying the same standard' to the criticisms themselves. For my money, they all come under the 'stolen concept' category.

As indicated in my #442, methinks you're putting your money on the wrong horse. ;-)

Ellen

___

[BaalChatzaf]

He famously said it ("Hypotheses non fingo"), but he'd have been wise to take his editor Robert Cotes' advice and leave the statement out of the Second Edition (1713) of The Principia. Cotes and others had already noticed by then that Newton did "feign" hypotheses, even in the section wherein he claimed not to do so.

Be that as it may, Newton hypothesized no causes for gravitation. He gave a phenomenological law that describes it very well (but not perfectly). Even Einstein has not given causes. Einstein tells us that mass curves the spacetime manifold, but he does not tell us how. He has tensors up the ying yang to describe the curvature but no cause is given. The only causal hypothesis is the exchange of spin 2 bosons (the graviton) which has never been detected. Quantum gravitation is not yet a well supported theory. In fact it has serious difficulties because of renormalization problems. So that leaves us with great theories describing gravitation and not a single plausible cause for gravitation.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Daniel,

I will let your words speak for themselves.

Mike:

Every argument I have read so far against induction being scientifically valid rests on deduction to be "conclusive."

Arguments by whom? Where? You've read my arguments, for example. I've never said any such thing. Who said anything about induction being "scientifically" invalid? It's logically invalid.

Ellen just did. I'm sorry. I thought you read her posts and agreed with them. My mistake.

Mike:

Ellen just did. I'm sorry.

No, that's only because you don't understand the argument she's making!

Now here is what Ellen wrote prior to that exchange.

If the claim is that induction exists as a valid method and that it's the method science actually uses, the claim is false. Michael has very far to go if he hopes to demonstrate its truth.

False, of course, according to some kind of employment of deduction since induction doesn't do the job.

Heh.

The only thing that hurts is watching you make a fool of yourself time after time on this subject.

. . .

Take my advice...

You used to be good. I don't know what in hell happened. Noting your current rhetoric and high level of error, why on earth would I take your advice on anything—especially charging tigers? You can take your own advice about that. I would probably laugh my butt off if I saw you what you would do using your own inductive knowledge if your own butt was on the line out in reality with a real tiger (that is if you survived—if not, I would be sad).

Michael