If you assume "invariances of nature" of a certain sort, then you can make a case for the viability of inductive inference in general, but you cannot thereby turn any specific inductive inference into a deduction. — SophistiCat
Science happily proceeds with local laws and "special" theories. — SophistiCat
Even Hume said we reason inductively because that is what is natural to our psychology. So we only "help ourselves to induction" in the sense that we find ourselves already the products of an evolutionary process. We were born to be pragmatically successful at predicting our worlds. — apokrisis
my point was only that we have no alternative to the laws themselves to focus our investigations; — Janus
The conclusion that inductive reasoning is a product of our evolutionary development comes at the far end of a long process of inductive inference. So that cannot be the sense in which we help ourselves to induction: we did that long before we had any inkling of such far-reaching conclusions. — SophistiCat
Not true.
Here's an inductive argument:
1. Some Ps are Qs
2. Therefore, all Ps are Qs — Magnus Anderson
SO are we talking conjectures and refutations - falsification?
That is, we see f(a), f(b), f(c)..., propose the conjecture that (x)f(x), and actively seek to find an example of E(x)~f(x)? — Banno
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
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
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
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
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 hit the cat and it runs away! — 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. — 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
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
probabilistic determinism — Perplexed
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.