David Harriman's Book

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

But Induction is just a fancy name for guesswork and offers no inkling of the underlying processes.

Michael,

I suspected as much.

(And I suspect you might be a Popperian, but I might be wrong. I've only encountered Popperians to be so emphatic about induction not existing.)

So we totally disagree.

Besides, I get woo-woo at times.

Nobody has shot down anything other than induction doesn't work like deduction.

People have been debating this thing for ages and no one has settled it, not even to the determinists' satisfaction.

Here's an analogy for how I see people who believe induction doesn't exist. They believe a form has a bottom, but not a top. Or an inside, but not an outside. Or maybe there are only parts, never wholes.

And here's an analogy for those who hold both exist: a circle. Any point on the circle will be the start point of one direction and the end point of the other, but both points are merely abstract as two. Physically they are the same point.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

In Tucson we have the In n Out hamburger chain (recently arrived from California). In is for Induction (a)n(d) Out is for Outduction (aka Deduction).

--Brant

or In is with fries and Out is without fries (ketchup is out of the loop--so when someone argues induction/deduction just add ketchup and say: "Deduct that, not the 'induct!'")

remember to send out the signal--I won't always know you need my help!

[MichaelPhilip]

Michael

well the inductivists have put forth many different variations of what they term "induction" and most of those variations have been sharply criticized and the errors in them pointed out. Nonetheless the inductivists just keep marching on pretending that we somehow rely on "induction" to gain new knowledge. The tradition is strong with those ones.

[anthony]

But you can't have one without the other: it's a two-way street in which they not only correspond, but also fortify each other in endless checking and double-checking .

"New knowledge" - I suppose - is exclusively scientifically -gained knowledge. The criticality of the entire sum of knowledge gained by mankind, can't be quibbled about. Having said that, I doubt the scientific method has ever been only deductive.

It seems to pass by the purist deductivist however, that life is not all science. Johnny Average, the individual - more critically - must arrive at as high a level of certainty as soon as possible, regarding his personal knowledge/methodology (including his morality and convictions), given his limited lifespan. The inductive capability saves time. It may well be less than perfect -or incomplete - knowledge, but a life isn't a laboratory experiment, and a man/woman can only act on what he/she possesses at this moment. Deduction-induction and concept formation are the epistemological foundation of (rational) egoism for that reason. It's no wonder that philosophical skeptics decry individualism: the degree of confidence and certainty a person can gain in his mind.

[BaalChatzaf]

But you can't have one without the other: it's a two-way street in which they not only correspond, but also fortify each other in endless checking and double-checking .

"New knowledge" - I suppose - is exclusively scientifically -gained knowledge. The criticality of the entire sum of knowledge gained by mankind, can't be quibbled about. Having said that, I doubt the scientific method has ever been only deductive.

It seems to pass by the purist deductivist however, that life is not all science. Johnny Average, the individual - more critically - must arrive at as high a level of certainty as soon as possible, regarding his personal knowledge/methodology (including his morality and convictions), given his limited lifespan. The inductive capability saves time. It may well be less than perfect -or incomplete - knowledge, but a life isn't a laboratory experiment, and a man/woman can only act on what he/she possesses at this moment. Deduction-induction and concept formation are the epistemological foundation of (rational) egoism for that reason. It's no wonder that philosophical skeptics decry individualism: the degree of confidence and certainty a person can gain in his mind.

The core of physical science is observation and measurement. That is why physical science is glued to reality, the real messy reality, not the abstractReality of Plato. That is why physical science does not turn into gaseous abstract philosophy. To check out theories one must build instruments, go out and look at what the world IS and this can be done only by getting down and getting dirty. Deduction comes in when predictions from the hypotheses are made. One sees what the theory implies and then sees if the world agrees with the implications. The world is always right. Our theories and hypotheses are only sometimes right and very rarely completely right.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

well the inductivists...

Michael,

Be careful with "ist" and "ism" terminology.

The only way to arrive at it is through induction.

For some reason, induction-deniers always go ape on categorizing collectives when talking about people. And they defend their collectivist inductions to the death...

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

But you can't have one without the other: it's a two-way street in which they not only correspond, but also fortify each other in endless checking and double-checking .

"New knowledge" - I suppose - is exclusively scientifically -gained knowledge. The criticality of the entire sum of knowledge gained by mankind, can't be quibbled about. Having said that, I doubt the scientific method has ever been only deductive.

It seems to pass by the purist deductivist however, that life is not all science. Johnny Average, the individual - more critically - must arrive at as high a level of certainty as soon as possible, regarding his personal knowledge/methodology (including his morality and convictions), given his limited lifespan. The inductive capability saves time. It may well be less than perfect -or incomplete - knowledge, but a life isn't a laboratory experiment, and a man/woman can only act on what he/she possesses at this moment. Deduction-induction and concept formation are the epistemological foundation of (rational) egoism for that reason. It's no wonder that philosophical skeptics decry individualism: the degree of confidence and certainty a person can gain in his mind.

The core of physical science is observation and measurement. That is why physical science is glued to reality, the real messy reality, not the abstractReality of Plato. That is why physical science does not turn into gaseous abstract philosophy. To check out theories one must build instruments, go out and look at what the world IS and this can be done only by getting down and getting dirty. Deduction comes in when predictions from the hypotheses are made. One sees what the theory implies and then sees if the world agrees with the implications. The world is always right. Our theories and hypotheses are only sometimes right and very rarely completely right.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Hypotheses suggest where to look for data. The philosophical world of science is just as messy and gaseous as concomitantly right philosophy seeking non-scientific truth. The problem is most philosophy is only concerned with philosophy and for those philosophies you are right. This means we can leave "gaseous" in the circular file when discussing science but must acknowledge there is a philosophy of science in its metaphysics and and epistemology and the INTEGRITY of the scientific truth seeker and it too lacks your contemptuous "gaseous" label, so stop trying to kick yourself in your philosophy ass, Bob. You do have an ass, after all. You do have a philosophy. It's all you ever talk about.

--Brant

me too: all talk is philosophy talking

[BaalChatzaf]

Induction is the way we learn to do stuff.

The only way to learn how to ride a bike is by induction. One must get on the bike, learn to balance by balancing learn to steer by steering. The price of the lessons: some time, some effort and some skinning of the knees and elbows.

[Brant Gaede]

Induction is the way we learn to do stuff.

The only way to learn how to ride a bike is by induction. One must get on the bike, learn to balance by balancing learn to steer by steering. The price of the lessons: some time, some effort and some skinning of the knees and elbows.

Deduction is how you figure out what you are going to try doing with the bike. Your trike has three wheels. The bike has two. Ergo, you figure out balance will be a problem before you even mount the damn thing. You can't even get going at first. Ergo, you deduce you need a push. I asked my sister for one in a small park by a river in Columbus and off I shakily went. Ten minutes of that kind of inductive/deductive stuff I was enough of a bike rider that no more instruction and practice was necessary. Ironically, I almost had a bike accident yesterday that could easily have put me into the emergency room--or worse--60 years from back then.

--Brant

don't know how I survived my childhood for all the accidents and near accidents and now old-man adulthood sweeps down on me so I hide in my home with guard dogs and firearms and security systems and enough food for the last 30 years of my life (not!)

[BaalChatzaf]

Induction is the way we learn to do stuff.

The only way to learn how to ride a bike is by induction. One must get on the bike, learn to balance by balancing learn to steer by steering. The price of the lessons: some time, some effort and some skinning of the knees and elbows.

Deduction is how you figure out what you are going to try doing with the bike. Your trike has three wheels. The bike has two. Ergo, you figure out balance will be a problem before you even mount the damn thing. You can't even get going at first. Ergo, you deduce you need a push. I asked my sister for one in a small park by a river in Columbus and off I shakily went. Ten minutes of that kind of inductive/deductive stuff I was enough of a bike rider that no more instruction and practice was necessary. Ironically, I almost had a bike accident yesterday that could easily have put me into the emergency room--or worse--60 years from back then.

--Brant

don't know how I survived my childhood for all the accidents and near accidents and now old-man adulthood sweeps down on me so I hide in my home with guard dogs and firearms and security systems and enough food for the last 30 years of my life (not!)oo

Sir, I have ridden two wheeled bikes since I was six years old. I can assure you, learning the thlaeory of two wheels and three wheels is of very little use once the two wheeler (no training wheels, either!!!) is mounted. The way one learns balance is by balancing. The way one learns steering is by steering. It is cut, try, fall, bleed. There is hardly a scintilla of deduction at work.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to teach anyone how to ride a two wheeled bike by abstract definitions and syllogisms. It cannot be learned from a biook. Period. There is no theory of actually riding a bike for real. Learning about rigid bodies, Euler angles, conservation of angular momentum, precession of gyroscopes is of no use. that is why little kids who can't even add can learn to ride bikes. They do it simply. They get up and ride and learn (the hard way) from their mistakes.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Induction is the way we learn to do stuff.

The only way to learn how to ride a bike is by induction. One must get on the bike, learn to balance by balancing learn to steer by steering. The price of the lessons: some time, some effort and some skinning of the knees and elbows.

Deduction is how you figure out what you are going to try doing with the bike. Your trike has three wheels. The bike has two. Ergo, you figure out balance will be a problem before you even mount the damn thing. You can't even get going at first. Ergo, you deduce you need a push. I asked my sister for one in a small park by a river in Columbus and off I shakily went. Ten minutes of that kind of inductive/deductive stuff I was enough of a bike rider that no more instruction and practice was necessary. Ironically, I almost had a bike accident yesterday that could easily have put me into the emergency room--or worse--60 years from back then.

--Brant

don't know how I survived my childhood for all the accidents and near accidents and now old-man adulthood sweeps down on me so I hide in my home with guard dogs and firearms and security systems and enough food for the last 30 years of my life (not!)oo

Sir, I have ridden two wheeled bikes since I was six years old. I can assure you, learning the thlaeory of two wheels and three wheels is of very little use once the two wheeler (no training wheels, either!!!) is mounted. The way one learns balance is by balancing. The way one learns steering is by steering. It is cut, try, fall, bleed. There is hardly a scintilla of deduction at work.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to teach anyone how to ride a two wheeled bike by abstract definitions and syllogisms. It cannot be learned from a biook. Period. There is no theory of actually riding a bike for real. Learning about rigid bodies, Euler angles, conservation of angular momentum, precession of gyroscopes is of no use. that is why little kids who can't even add can learn to ride bikes. They do it simply. They get up and ride and learn (the hard way) from their mistakes.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Sir, I'm sorry you fell of your bike and hurt yourself learning to ride! But not I! I used deduction to avoid that! You and Greg--always bumping into things. Try thinking before you make your next bomb (lessee what happens when I drop a bottle of nitro). BOOM!

--Brant

he deduces so he doesn't loses!

~if it bleeds it leads!~

[Brant Gaede]

How to learn to argue by arguing over how to learn to ride a bike!

--Brant

only in America!

only on OL!

Bob bumped into me--Bob! Bob! Are you okay? Couldn't you deduce from what I do to Greg you can't beat me that way?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Actually, primates mostly learn new things by imitation.

We are hard-wired that way.

So is that imitative knowledge gained by deduction?

How about this?

The dog's really cute, too.

Let's see if any "deductionist" wants to argue that the dog's teaching the baby to "gain new knowledge" (how to jump) by deduction or falsifiability.

Michael

[MichaelPhilip]

Induction is the way we learn to do stuff.

The only way to learn how to ride a bike is by induction. One must get on the bike, learn to balance by balancing learn to steer by steering. The price of the lessons: some time, some effort and some skinning of the knees and elbows.

We learn to ride a bike by trial and error. We need no explicit particular generalisation, or language of any sort, during learning to ride, nor that we need to recall when we go to ride in the future

[BaalChatzaf]

Induction is the way we learn to do stuff.

The only way to learn how to ride a bike is by induction. One must get on the bike, learn to balance by balancing learn to steer by steering. The price of the lessons: some time, some effort and some skinning of the knees and elbows.

We learn to ride a bike by trial and error. We need no explicit particular generalisation, or language of any sort, during learning to ride, nor that we need to recall when we go to ride in the future

trial and error is the most basic form of induction. It is how we learn how to ride bikes and how we learn the grammar of the languages we are taught.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

We need no explicit particular generalisation, or language of any sort, during learning to ride, nor that we need to recall when we go to ride in the future

Of course we do. A whole set of generalizations, in fact. Starting with causality, gestalts of different motor skills, etc.

Here's a simple example. Under normal conditions, if a student applies the brakes, the bike will stop--all the time. Including all times in the future. If a time happens where the brakes don't stop the bike, this is an indication of an anomaly or malfunction and it needs fixing. It is not the new knowledge that brakes qua brakes only work part time.

What are normal conditions? Brakes in proper working order. Environment suited to bike riding. Not too much more than that.

Imagine the psychological state of a person who could only use trial and error every time he applied the brakes because he didn't know if they would stop or not. Pure fear. He would not be able to learn.

Also, he actually does need to learn generalizations about where he goes when he rides. For example, under normal conditions, he does not ride a bike on top of a pond or lake. It will sink if he does that. All times in the future. It will never fail. So if he sees a large body of water, he knows he will sink if he tries to ride the bike on top of it. So he doesn't go there.

In fact, he doesn't need to learn that one by trial and error, even as a kid, unless he is a dunderhead. Call that one the duh factor, but it's still induction.

Michael

[MichaelPhilip]

well the inductivists...

Michael,

Be careful with "ist" and "ism" terminology.

The only way to arrive at it is through induction.

For some reason, induction-deniers always go ape on categorizing collectives when talking about people. And they defend their collectivist inductions to the death...

Michael

categorizing collectives? no, just being critical of the theories of induction put forth by those who claim that we practise induction or that somehow we would be lost without it. I notice that when they have no answer to the criticisms of their methods they resort to word games.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

categorizing collectives? no, just being critical of the theories of induction put forth by those who claim that we practise induction or that somehow we would be lost without it. I notice that when they have no answer to the criticisms of their methods they resort to word games.

Michael,

Of course you categorized a collective. The term and concept "inductivists" is yours, bro. Not mine. That's not being critical. That's forming a category of people. I presume your definition is "those who claim that we practise induction or that somehow we would be lost without it."

Your words, not mine.

And if that is not an induction on your part, what, pray tell, may it be other than a "word game" instead of an "answer to a criticism of your method" of proclaiming an absolute? (I.e., the Popperian thing of induction does not exist.)

Are you aware that you actually do what you deny you do, and what you accuse others of doing? You just did both.

I ask this sincerely because I have argued with several people who use the same style of rhetoric as you and generally they are so deep into their own inner core story of snobbish superiority over others and playing one-upmanship in the place of discussing ideas, they are clueless.

That sounds snarky, but my intent is not that. It is an attempt at a cognitive before normative mental process and I'm being more blunt than normal to save time.

Here's an example of what that means so I don't sound so abstract. In this context, "snobbish" is a neutral identification, not a value judgment or put-down. The value judgment comes later in the process and I could keep the word, discard it, or opt for others when I reach that normative stage (and what I do would depend on what I judged: good or bad). At the identification (cognitive) stage, I am merely describing the behavior I see in your post as compared to other instances of snobbishness I have witnessed from other people. It's neither good nor bad at this point. It's just of a certain kind.

Besides, if you are like I think you are, you won't mind. You'll think I'm a dork or something and say some smartass thing or other aimed at my intelligence.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Sir, I'm sorry you fell of your bike and hurt yourself learning to ride! But not I! I used deduction to avoid that! You and Greg--always bumping into things. Try thinking before you make your next bomb (lessee what happens when I drop a bottle of nitro). BOOM!

--Brant

he deduces so he doesn't loses!

~if it bleeds it leads!~

Before you got something to deduce you had to get on the bike and ride and fall and ride and fall.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Sir, I'm sorry you fell of your bike and hurt yourself learning to ride! But not I! I used deduction to avoid that! You and Greg--always bumping into things. Try thinking before you make your next bomb (lessee what happens when I drop a bottle of nitro). BOOM!

--Brant

he deduces so he doesn't loses!

~if it bleeds it leads!~

Before you got something to deduce you had to get on the bike and ride and fall and ride and fall.

Riding a bicycle isn't propositional thought. It's a physical skill. What does either deduction or induction have to do with it?

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

Ellen, my layman's discussion as with Bob doesn't belong here.

I think of induction-deduction as a unified thinking process and, insofar as I understand it, "the problem of induction" is not a problem until you cleave these two apart. Does science have this "problem"?

Induction-deduction strikes me as somewhat analogous to the so-called "is-ought" problem Rand supposedly solved. "Is" is the facts and "ought" the conclusion from those data. But the oughts are not absolute oughts in the sense that facts are. Here is our factual understanding of human nature. Therefore humans ought to have this ethics and that politics. The single, major fallacy of Objectivism is ramming absolutism all the way through it from beginning to end, no digestion allowed. The only way for people to embrace Objectivism is to digest it and to digest it it needs to be digestible. Start with Galt's Speech and go to NBI teachings and the main purpose of Objectivism seems to be to bitch-slap altruism-collectivism from A to Z every day and twice on Sunday. That's great, so far as it goes, but except on many personal levels--millions, I'm sure--such as living without moral guilt for acting in and for one's self interest, that's as far as it's gone socially-intellectually.

--Brant

[anthony]

Hmm...

Quite well known definitions to get us off the bicycles and back on track:

"The process of forming and applying concepts contains the essential pattern of two fundamental methods

of cognition: induction and deduction.

The process of observing the facts of reality and of integrating them into concepts is, in essence, a process

of induction. The process of subsuming new instances under a known concept is, in essence, a process

of deduction."

[AR; Abstraction From Abstractions ITOE].

(Also, said simply and well I think, by Leonard Peikoff):

"Man's knowledge is not acquired by logic apart from experience or by experience apart from logic, but

*by the application of logic to experience*".

[The A-S Dichotomy]

Contradictorily, anti-inductionists - then, by Rand's definitions - must have certainly inducted ~some~ concepts in order to practise their deduction in the first place.

Unless, -- what?

They are employing ready-made concepts of other thinkers?

Who can tell?

[BaalChatzaf]

Riding a bicycle isn't propositional thought. It's a physical skill. What does either deduction or induction have to do with it?

Ellen

The learning riders tries various body moves to keep his balance (especially on the turns). From this he learns the moves that do not lead to a fall. That is what learning is about. Try this, try that, see what works. That is about as inductive as one can get.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[MichaelPhilip]

Induction is the way we learn to do stuff.

The only way to learn how to ride a bike is by induction. One must get on the bike, learn to balance by balancing learn to steer by steering. The price of the lessons: some time, some effort and some skinning of the knees and elbows.

We learn to ride a bike by trial and error. We need no explicit particular generalisation, or language of any sort, during learning to ride, nor that we need to recall when we go to ride in the future

trial and error is the most basic form of induction. It is how we learn how to ride bikes and how we learn the grammar of the languages we are taught.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Induction is completely unknown as a real phenomenon so there isn't a "basic" form of it and all the suggested "variations" of what people who followed and still follow in that tradition, term "induction" (probabilistic induction to take just one example) don't pass the criticisms made of them. It remains a sealed-lips policy concerning the nature of this mysterious relation.

We need no explicit particular generalisation, or language of any sort, during learning to ride, nor that we need to recall when we go to ride in the future

Of course we do. A whole set of generalizations, in fact. Starting with causality, gestalts of different motor skills, etc.

Here's a simple example. Under normal conditions, if a student applies the brakes, the bike will stop--all the time. Including all times in the future. If a time happens where the brakes don't stop the bike, this is an indication of an anomaly or malfunction and it needs fixing. It is not the new knowledge that brakes qua brakes only work part time.

What are normal conditions? Brakes in proper working order. Environment suited to bike riding. Not too much more than that.

Imagine the psychological state of a person who could only use trial and error every time he applied the brakes because he didn't know if they would stop or not. Pure fear. He would not be able to learn.

Also, he actually does need to learn generalizations about where he goes when he rides. For example, under normal conditions, he does not ride a bike on top of a pond or lake. It will sink if he does that. All times in the future. It will never fail. So if he sees a large body of water, he knows he will sink if he tries to ride the bike on top of it. So he doesn't go there.

In fact, he doesn't need to learn that one by trial and error, even as a kid, unless he is a dunderhead. Call that one the duh factor, but it's still induction.

Michael

Boys with bikes sometimes have brakes that work, and sometimes not. The 1950s fashion for the fixed wheel was instead of brakes. We stopped by means of the fixed wheel. But most of cycling seems to be tacit, even the repair processes. We did not usually talk when we learn to ride or when we experimented with our bikes.

But we do learn by trial and error and we do not have any fear. Why should there be any fear? We do look at the bikes when we use them. We do nothing on faith or on only memory from the past. We check.

I think you are right that we can tell that the water in a lake will not carry the bike without trying it out. We learn many things by sheer guesswork. I doubt if any child was ever surprised that fire burnt and was painful. They could guess that by looking at it. We make our generalisations but we do not find them. We impose them. But they can be the case in fact, even though we have not tested all possible examples. They are assumptions rather than inferences from research.

Do you feel any of this begins to relate to the failed algorithm of induction? I do not. But it does relate to some of the things that authors on induction put into their books for padding.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael,

Why are you ignoring imitation as one of the main means of a primate gaining new knowledge? (A boy learning to ride a bike does not do that in a mental vacuum. He has seen others ride bicycles, so he has a mental image as a model for imitation.)

Because it doesn't fit the storyline of the "failed algorithm" of induction?

Which steps, btw, I would need to see you enumerate in order to see if what you call induction is the same thing as I do. I presume you can enumerate the steps of the algorithm that fails in your opinion.

To wit, I suspect your algorithm will boil down to deduction (I base this on having interacted a lot with people holding this line of argument). And if that is the case, you will be correct. Induction does fail as deduction. But that's because it is not deduction, not because it is a fantasy or "failed algorithm."

This argument is kind of like like calling a cat a failed dog. Barking certainly is a failed algorithm for meowing.

In other words, your argument will end up being point 2 in my trifecta of arguments by folks who believe induction does not exist. (Point 2 is "Induction doesn't count because it is not deduction.")

There are other elements of reasoning that are extremely important to the existence of induction (but far more importantly, to learning and discovering knowledge) that I have not seen addressed in these arguments. I have not argued them in the past because I have only recently learned about them in depth. One main element is the mental process of framing. Another is storyline (or narrative or history or process--the terminology is not very precise since many people use it with different meanings, but the concept is).

The more I delve into these elements, the more I find them far more important and useful for gaining knowledge than debating the existence of something that obviously does exist. So you will see me talk with a great deal of enthusiasm about these elements while being a bit bland after all this time on an old Popper position that makes sense only to Popperians. I believe these Popperians are sincere, but that affirmation still don't make sense outside of their narrative bubble.

Crucifixion as a path to salvation only makes sense to Christians, but I know many Christians who are very sincere about that.

Who am I to question anyone's faith?

Michael