• Janus
    4.6k


    LOL, I'm not really sure what you're wanting to say here. That's twice in a row now, so maybe the problem lies with me. Here's an abductive/ inductive inference: not enough sleep maybe? :-O
  • Banno
    2.3k
    yes; good, so we can move past naive falsification to holistic refutations of theories- groups of observations?
  • charleton
    843

    At the risk of not causing more confusion....

    By "expect" I was responding to the statement "For nature's regularity to be such a surprising fact - something we could even notice - we would have had to have been expecting something rather different.", which you asked apokrisis about.
  • apokrisis
    3.2k
    Well why was Newtonian determinism such a metaphysical surprise? Because it stands directly against the belief that we are creatures of capricious whims and desires.

    In pre-scientific thinking, the world as a whole was understood animistically. It also operated like a mind. So the idea that physical events had no essential choice was a surprise given that context of expectations.

    We can't induce generalities from particulars unless we already have some general reason to notice those particulars in the first place. Nature has to falsify some already extant mental prediction - one held implicitly at least. The facts have to be drawn to our attention by failing to fit.

    That is why I keep stressing the other neglected side of the story - the principle of indifference that then becomes our tolerance for exceptions to the rule. No constraint on the accidental can ever be total (in the way that the deductionists/absolutists/mechanists dream it). So any "law of nature" has to be fundamentally a probability statement. And it becomes an informal judgement - part of the act of measurement - where to set a reasonable threshold on that.

    Banno always likes to argue from a trancendental absolutist perspective - that there is a fact of the matter.

    But Peirce kicked that logicist's nonsense for touch. Reality itself is probabilistic. Our modelling of that reality is self-interested. Those are the fundamental constraints in play when it comes any putative "theories of truth". We can draw lines across reality - such as where we feel that differences cease to make a real difference. But the lines are essentially informal and pragmatic. They are justified subjectively in the end.

    But if we can also then define what would be maximally subjective, we do have a shot at defining what the maximally objective would be in contrast. Which is of course the stall that science sets up.
  • René Descartes
    218
    Wow, this discussion is only 10 days old and yet it has a lot of posts.
  • René Descartes
    218


    David Hume is wrong. Empiricism is wrong.
  • Janus
    4.6k
    ↪Janus
    yes; good, so we can move past naive falsification to holistic refutations of theories- groups of observations?
    Banno

    I'm not sure where you are going with this Banno; could you elaborate?
  • Janus
    4.6k


    All good points!
  • Magnus Anderson
    232
    Rubbish.
    This is just poor logic. A broken deduction, pretending to be something. Nothing to do with induction at all.


    An inductive argument is more like X happens after Y all the time. So maybe X is caused by Y.
    Post hoc ergo propter hoc is only fallacious if it is wrong.
    charleton

    You're being pedantic. It's what people to do in order to feel superior (when they are actually not.) See Banno for example.

    Here's an amendment to my argument:

    1. Some Ps are Qs (e.g. all of the observed ones)
    2. Therefore, all Ps are Qs (in my opinion, so yeah, maybe I'm wrong, it's not certain)

    Basically, what we have here is people who do not think ob their own but parrot. So when someone comes along and does not repeat the popular narrative word-by-word he's subjected to pathetic pedantry.
  • SophistiCat
    286
    Determinism can be framed deductively as:

    1.There are immutable laws which determine every event down to the minutest detail
    2. Every event must occur exactly as it does occur and the immutable laws are its sufficient reason
    Janus

    I am not sure why you bring up determinism at this point. Are you saying that inductive/deductive split is equivalent to indeterminism/determinism? The laws of nature could be deterministic, but we don't know that (we don't even know that there are laws of nature). And even if we did somehow know that with certainty, that knowledge alone wouldn't have removed the need for inductive inference, since we still wouldn't have had sufficient information to deduce everything we wish to know.

    You can also put specific inductive inferences into deductive forms by adding extra premises which insure that you must end up with the result that is observed.Janus

    That wouldn't be the same inference - it would be a different inference with the same conclusion. But I in any case, I am not seeing the significance of this observation.
  • SophistiCat
    286
    You will have to explain why this "helping ourselves" is some kind of problem. It might be if you believed that deduction is more fundamental than induction or something. But how can it be if it is the other way around?apokrisis

    I am not saying that helping ourselves to induction is a problem - quite the opposite. Or if it is a problem, any "cure" that has been proposed so far - any putative justification for induction - is worse than the "disease."

    I don't think that deduction is less fundamental than induction; deductive reasoning seems to be at least as fundamental as inductive. But that doesn't mean that one can subsume the other.

    I hit the cat and it runs away!charleton

    GTFO
  • Janus
    4.6k


    No it would be the same inference with the premises made explicit. And the point is simply that inductive arguments can be rendered in deductive form in order to be presented as valid arguments.

    If you don't see the significance of that to refute the claim that inductive arguments are not valid then I guess that would be to your detriment, not mine.
  • charleton
    843
    You're being pedantic. It's what people to do in order to feel superior (when they are actually not.) See Banno for example.Magnus Anderson

    You problem is that you just don't know what you are talking about.
    If you don't find out, people are just going to laugh at you.
  • charleton
    843
    I hit the cat and it runs away!
    — charleton

    GTFO
    SophistiCat

    lol
  • charleton
    843
    1.There are immutable laws which determine every event down to the minutest detail
    2. Every event must occur exactly as it does occur and the immutable laws are its sufficient reason
    Janus
    This is more of a tautology.
  • Magnus Anderson
    232
    You problem is that you just don't know what you are talking about.
    If you don't find out, people are just going to laugh at you.
    charleton

    Tsk. You're being a fool.
  • charleton
    843

    Deduction is about definitions. About figuring out a fact from a generalised law.
    Induction is empirical. It seeks to offer provisional laws FROM observations.
    All Ps are Qs, and such arguments have no bearing on induction.
    If you can't work that our you need to run along.
  • Magnus Anderson
    232
    You are not saying anything relevant.

    I was responding to Banno.

    Here's the first paragraph form the Shorter Rutledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, inductive inference.

    According to a long tradition, an inductive inference is an inference from a premise of the form "all observed A are B" to a conclusion of the form "All A are B". Such inferences are not deductively valid, that is, even if the premise is true it is possible that the conclusion is false, since unobserved A's may differ from observed ones.

    Now, does anyone here think that this is wrong? Surely at least we have agreement on this.
    Banno

    Basically, the encyclopedia is saying that inductive arguments have the following form:

    1. All observed As are Bs
    2. Therefore, all As are Bs

    You must be smarter than this encyclopedia because it says nothing about the conclusion being "merely" probable. Right?

    I generalized this to:

    1. Some As are Bs
    2. Therefore, all As are Bs

    The premise is no longer restricted to observations.

    Now I have to ask: what exactly is your point?
  • Perplexed
    69
    There is no compromise. Just one choice, one probabilistic (or random choice), no matter how small, destroys determinism.Rich

    If a probabilistic determinism allows space for free will then that enough of a compromise for me.
  • Rich
    3.1k
    probabilistic determinismPerplexed

    That's OK, but it is no longer determinism. The only aspect of determinism that is being maintained is the word. Why the infatuation with the word? I think it lies in a religious-like faith in the Laws of Nature. But then we need to discuss the overall human condition and the desire for outside forces to rule one's life.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.