anthony Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Classical or any other model strikes me as an aftereffect of a conclusion--that is, an imposition of order to straighten everything out and go on with additional flights of fancy. It's just securing the foundation. Who actually uses any model to go anywhere? Einstein got "there" before the "proofs" did.--BrantModel was probably a little off. You could see it as "imposition", but for me it's rather the other way, of 'confirmation' of what we are already doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 A valid line of reasoning guarantees a true conclusion when it starts from true premises.Bob,I agree with this. I think it is cheating and imprecise to say "I have only seen white swans, therefore all swans are white," then call that induction. The precise way is "I have only seen white swans, therefore a pattern of white swans exists."MichaelIt's an important qualification Michael, and fits my understanding of the 'classical model' (as I see it) of induction: Observation - Pattern - Tentative Hypothesis - Theory.Compare with deduction: Theory - Hypothesis - Observation - Confirmation.I'm still trying to figure how a Popperian arrives at a theory without induction. Floating abstraction?the magic word is abduction, not induction. Abduction is the formulation of most plausible causes for an observed event-type. It is a fancy word for making a guess. Once one has hypothesized causes, one tries to falsify the hypothesis empirically or reject it because if logically implies a contradiction. (NB. A contradiction is a proposition having the form P & not-P.Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 One of the oddest comments I remember reading about his book, though, is Peikoff saying somewhere that science is fundamentally induction, not deduction.To be fair, I will give Peikoff this.Rand's entire epistemology is based on hierarchical knowledge. Fundamental axiomatic concepts are at the base of everything--including the rules for deduction. (I.e., they must exist and have identity before they can be rules. )The only way to arrive at axioms is through induction.You can't deduce a fundamental axiom with propositional logic. You can only observe repeated instances and conclude.So I understand how a person could conclude that induction is more important than deduction.However, from the way I see it, the very concept of axiom only has meaning when there is something you can do with it, i.e., logic. Even though the axiom is more fundamental to the hierarchy of knowledge, it is useless without the hierarchy. Alone, it's like a dead root without a tree.So I'm keeping my position that one (deduction) cannot exist without the other (induction) and vice-versa. They are both parts of a greater whole (which, in turn, is greater than the sum of its parts. )Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 "Abduction" seems to be pre-logical; not of a logical method--that is, not logical (or illogical), neither inductive nor deductive. For that, I'd have no objection. Just another tool, another way--necessary, in fact.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 the magic word is abduction, not induction. Abduction is the formulation of most plausible causes for an observed event-type. It is a fancy word for making a guess. Once one has hypothesized causes, one tries to falsify the hypothesis empirically or reject it because if logically implies a contradiction. (NB. A contradiction is a proposition having the form P & not-P.Bob,Abduction, schmabduction or dwaddleduction or fuckduction.The essential problem does not go away by inventing a term to take care of the the common sense part of a huge intellectual con game.Everything I've read about abduction points to this motive.The "change the name" game is usually seen in politics (where, for example, liberal changed from freedom to big government busybody). It's odd to see it in philosophy and science, but I think, so far, this crapduction issue is a lot simpler than highfalutin intellectuals want others to believe. So, when painted into a corner, they change the name and make up stuff.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmj Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Sometimes people are highfalutin enough to just make stuff up and then name it, too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Sometimes people are highfalutin enough to just make stuff up and then name it, too tmj,Touché.But in this case, lots of highfalutin people had been discussing Hume before abductive reasoning came along--too many insiders disagreeing with each other all of a sudden and common sense looking like it was going to embarrass them.So they pierced the boil of the embarrassment and made up a new term to explain what any adolescent knows (but they were denying).Voila. Abduction.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Sometimes people are highfalutin enough to just make stuff up and then name it, too tmj,Touché. But in this case, lots of highfalutin people had been discussing Hume before abductive reasoning came along--too many insiders disagreeing with each other all of a sudden and common sense looking like it was going to embarrass them.So they pierced the boil of the embarrassment and made up a new term to explain what any adolescent knows (but they were denying).Voila. Abduction. Michaelabductiion is an inductive approach to positing causes for observed effects and events. Not to be confused with induction from particular cases. The white swan/black swan business in induction from particular cases. In any case Induction does not guarantee a correct coclusion. That is the bad news. The good news is it is the only way of making the leap from particulars to generalities.Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 In any case Induction does not guarantee a correct coclusion.Bob,Bullshit.It depends on what conclusion you are talking about.Like I said above, if you have seen a bunch of white swans, you cannot conclude anything about the color each individual swan you have not seen.But you can conclude something universal about ALL swans--that among all swans, a pattern of white swans exists.That is true knowledge. That is a correct conclusion. And it affects all individual swans, past present and future when belonging to a category called swan is fundamental to thinking about them. If you gather them ALL together in an abstraction, which is what a category does, you will find a pattern of white swans among them. 100% guaranteed. Induction is the process that guarantees this conclusion.And it doesn't rely on deduction to do it.Wanna prove it? Just remember what you saw. And go out and look some more at swans.For some reason you find that universal knowledge trivial and ignore it, but it isn't.btw - On another point, how are you coming on that issue of saying you don't know anyone who denies the existence of inductive reasoning, but agree with Popper when he says inductive reasoning doesn't exist?Any progress?Work with me, now. Work with me.We'll get there some day. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 So they pierced the boil of the embarrassment and made up a new term to explain what any adolescent knows (but they were denying).Voila. Abduction.Dayaamm!Nobody's getting my groaner pun?Charles Sanders Pierce? The abduction dude?Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 So they pierced the boil of the embarrassment and made up a new term to explain what any adolescent knows (but they were denying).Voila. Abduction.Dayaamm!Nobody's getting my groaner pun?Charles Sanders Pierce? The abduction dude? Michael'His name is spelled Peirce and it is pronounced like "purse"Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Oops.That must be why nobody got it.Let me try again:So they peirced the boil of the embarrassment and made up a new term to explain what any adolescent knows (but they were denying). Voila. Abduction.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Much ado about little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Brant,You're right.I'm busting on Bob because he was condescending right at the moment he stepped in it.And he can't stand being wrong.Especially when he is caught red-handed. Like this time.Ahhhh...Contemplating his discomfort brings me such pleasure.(Just joking... )Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDS Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Brant,You're right.I'm busting on Bob because he was condescending right at the moment he stepped in it.And he can't stand being wrong.Especially when he is caught red-handed. Like this time.Ahhhh...Contemplating his discomfort brings me such pleasure. (Just joking... )MichaelI believe the correct term is Baalenfreude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Brant,You're right.I'm busting on Bob because he was condescending right at the moment he stepped in it.And he can't stand being wrong.Especially when he is caught red-handed. Like this time.Ahhhh...Contemplating his discomfort brings me such pleasure. (Just joking... )MichaelSchadenfreude is my second favorite hobby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 I believe the correct term is Baalenfreude. David,Now that's a word worth keeping.Bob, you are going to become immortalized in language.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 So is Ba'al. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 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. MichaelI vote for the dog is attacking the shadow...and I know that I am right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Adam is a spoilsport.--Brantdon't bring me truth; I need confirmation and comfort and fun!re-do the video to get rid of the shadow (This is Big Brother Speaking) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 What no Platonic reference?I demand a re-what ever you do with philosophers-storying, meme thingy...so confused and being a stupid American voter I need a subsidy for it...A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 What no Platonic reference?I demand a re-what ever you do with philosophers-storying, meme thingy...so confused and being a stupid American voter I need a subsidy for it...A...Your check is in the mail--from Nigeria!--Brantit's that oil money! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 What no Platonic reference?I demand a re-what ever you do with philosophers-storying, meme thingy...so confused and being a stupid American voter I need a subsidy for it...A...Your check is in the mail--from Nigeria!--Brantit's that oil money!Oh good...I like wars for oil...that is so simple a story even me as a stupid American can believe in... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 I vote for the dog is attacking the shadow...and I know that I am right!Adam,Very likely.My vote is the dog is doing a mix of things, attacking and teaching.But the kid is still jumping, so regardless of what the dog is doing, he is learning by imitation (the play kind).Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Adam is a spoilsport.Brant,See above.Did that unspoil it?Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now