Is it even logically possible for full determinism to produce more than one outcome? — Perplexed
And you still haven't addressed my point about the analogical nature of inductive and abductive thinking and the inappropriateness of applying the criterion of deductive validity where it doesn't belong, in order to dismiss the importance of its role in human inquiry into the nature of the world. — Janus
then induction can be valid. — Magnus Anderson
then induction can be valid.
— Magnus Anderson
Only if it is framed in deductive form — Janus
In logic, an argument is valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. — Wikipedia
Whether or not a certain syllogism is "valid" is only relevant on graded tests.
What is relevant is knowledge is acquired by a combination of personal observations, group consensus, and periodic moments of intuition and inspiration. Such knowledge can be used in a formal manner using some symbolic logic, but the root of knowledge is in observational pattern recognition of v various sorts. — Rich
Not really. If I define logical validity broadly to mean that an argument is valid if and only if it logically follows from the premises (i.e. if it does not violate the rules of reasoning) then induction is by definition valid. — Magnus Anderson
mass of observations will mean nothing — Magnus Anderson
If an argument is such that its conclusion follows necessarily from its premises then it is an deductive argument, end of story. That is how a deductive argument is defined. — Janus
Observations together with pattern recognition combined with inspiration/intuition that gives new meaning to these recognized patterns. — Rich
↪Magnus Anderson If we are agreeing, then great. However, I don't know where intuition/inspiration falls within the rules of logic. Also, pattern recognition is not simply generalization. Frequently it is a process of observing differences and similarities among many patterns and then intuitively combining these intuitively conceived newer patterns into an entirely new greater pattern that allows one to acquire an entirely new way of understanding something. Most breakthroughs in science happen this way. — Rich
I think that inspiration is irrelevant to understanding how reasoning works. — Magnus Anderson
I'm actually talking about knowledge acquisition. I believe this is what Hume was also interested in.
Intuition is not only poorly defined, it is impossible to define because it pops out of the experience of living. It just happens. However, the more one practices observation and pattern recognition, the more one is likely to have moments of inspiration because it is sharp observation skills that is the mother of inspiration. With such a process, one is merely traveling on the same path of knowledge forever. I guess one can rely on the inspiration of others — Rich
Again, intuition is merely defined as a process of decision making that is outside of our awareness. — Magnus Anderson
I think I will take your advice and look at the literature since I am rather new to all this. However, if you can elaborate some of the conceptual issues with regard to determinism that might be helpful. — Perplexed
One might have hoped that this survey would provide an answer to the question: If we believe modern physics, is the world deterministic or not? But there is no simple and clean answer. The theories of modern physics paint many different and seemingly incommensurable pictures of the world; not only is there no unified theory of physics, there is not even agreement on the best route to getting one. And even within a particular theory— say, QM or GTR—there is no clear verdict. This is a reflection of the fact that determinism is bound up with some of the most important unresolved foundations problems for these theories. While this linkage makes for frustration if one is in search of a quick and neat answer to the above question, it also makes determinism an exciting topic for the philosophy of science. — Determinism: What We Have Learned and What We Still Don’t Know
I'm not familiar with Goodman's grue scenario. In any case I was referring to the past, not the future. I don't see why, if it is based on an understanding of evolution, it would not rely on the assumption that the invariances of nature were in the past as they are today. And that assumption is as much irrationally inductive as the assumption that the invariances of nature will be in the future as they appear to be today. — Janus
Sometimes posts are designed to agree.I can't see any point of disagreement here; other than the pedantic one concerning the idea of the sun rising. — Janus
↪charleton I image that that laws are not fully deterministic or else that they apply over a limited scope. Is it even logically possible for full determinism to produce more than one outcome? — Perplexed
induction's seeming self-evidence is not enough to justify it when you consider why it seems to be self-evident. — SophistiCat
Here's an inductive argument:
1. Some Ps are Qs
2. Therefore, all Ps are Qs
The conclusion necessarily follows from the premise. — Magnus Anderson
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.