What is the role of the 'Inductively' at the beginning of this sentence? If it means, 'using the principle of induction' then it is assuming the conclusion - i.e. the validity of that principle. If not, I can't see the word contributing anything to the sentence.Inductively, we thus have no good reason to think that the story would reverse itself in the future. — apokrisis
just like we have no good reason to think it won't reverse — andrewk
Then you make some further suggestion about individual worldly processes that produce entities en masse.
Apart from coke bottles and model T fords, did you have some natural process in mind here.
What kind of process produces beaches for instance? There are loads of those everywhere. — apokrisis
I would assume a constant in the action of water currents upon small particules in relation to geographical features? — Akanthinos
t's because those processes leads to mass production of similar entities that we are warranted in speaking of category and kinds, not because the world is structured categorically — Akanthinos
Would a good analogy for the relationship be "logic is 'pure logic' and science is 'applied logic', in comparison to pure and applied mathematics"? — MonfortS26
Logic should be used in circumstances of uncertainty. In order to have a formal deductive logic, axioms must be set. These axioms should be ideally be grounded in the scientific method. It is fair to claim that the scientific method is itself, grounded in its own axioms, but the reproducibility and outside application of its results is reason enough to believe in its merit.
The same argument can be applied to the concept of logic as well. In situations where an axiom is not grounded in scientific reasoning, for my personal use, the best option is to create arguments and attempt to decide what is more probable based on said arguments. This is a process that can only be done with intuition. The merit of those arguments, if not eventually supported by scientific progress, can be measured through the durability of those claims due to public scrutiny. Logic is only useful in determining future behavior. When trying to determine what the best course of action is, the first step is to make observations, based on those observations, you ask yourself questions. Once you have your questions, you create a set of axioms that are logically consistent with each other and use deductive reasoning in order to determine the best outcome. Finally, if things do not go as planned, you come back and question those initial axioms and go back and change them as necessary. Then repeat the cycle.
The problem with this though is where I state that the axioms should be grounded in the scientific method. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I basically just re-transcribed the scientific method. It seems like the scientific method is just the application of logic, reduced to 'scientific' axioms. My question is this, is there any knowledge worth knowing, that cannot be learned through this cycle? Is there any reason not to just follow the scientific method and adjust based on the pragmatic maxim when in times of doubt?
We have observations that inductive principles have served us well in the past. On that I expect we agree.We have inductive evidence that inductive principles have prevailed to date. — apokrisis
Nothing. The mistake is to expect, or even demand, a warrant. The answer is to act without warrant.What would (or could) warrant any particular expectation or corresponding course of action? — aletheist
Because we know what consequences past actions have had, but we do not know what the consequences will be of future actions, or of actions we are currently undertaking but for which the consequences are not yet observable.If the difference in tense is crucial, demonstrate what practical difference it could make. — apokrisis
We have observations about what worked in the past, and that includes observations that the principle of induction worked in the past. I can see no way of logically deducing from those observations a prediction of what will work in the future- including whether the principle of induction will work in future - without using the principle of induction. Neither could Hume. Neither could anybody else since then.You said the difference in tense between past and present was crucial - between worked and works.
So what was that about? — apokrisis
We act according to our nature, which is to assume the principle of induction, without wasting time futilely seeking a warrant for the assumption. — andrewk
Nobody has suggested that we drop the principle. Look at the post eight up from here (for some reason I can't link to it), where I in fact suggest the opposite.So it would be matchingly unreasonable to now drop the principle. — apokrisis
We act according to our nature, which is to assume the principle of induction, without wasting time futilely seeking a warrant for the assumption. — andrewk
That one cannot find a non-circular, logical reason for holding a principle is not a reason not to adopt it. — andrewk
Hume imagined no such thing. On the contrary he pointed out that there couldn't be a logical reason, or at least (being a fairly humble fellow) that he had no hope of ever finding such a reason.I think that is the mistake you are making, and that Hume also made; is imagining that there could possibly be a logical reason — Janus
That is Reichenbach's response, and IMHO it's a good one. Note that it says nothing about how likely induction is to work, just that we have no alternatives that we expect to work any better. That, either alone, or together with my observation that we cannot help but use induction, is enough reason to use it when deciding on actions. But whether that's enough to call it a warrant depends on how strong your standard of warranty is.as we have no viable substitute at all, that seems to be a pretty good reason to accept induction. — Janus
If a man's beliefs are identified with his non-verbal behaviour — sime
That is a very contentious proposition, and in any case, I don't see how it bears on warrant. No one denies that we do think - and behave - inductively (except maybe Popperians). — SophistiCat
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.