3) and 4) are unjustified. — Hillary

3) was really just defining thorough. How is 4) unjustified? If the claimant isn't lying and their analysis of their claim is solid, then what they're claiming is probably true

1) applies to astrology as well. — Hillary

1) Yeah. It actually applies to all superstitions too. This premise was really just defining a pattern. We see patterns everywhere. Even when they are coincidental.

2) That the final observations of the pattern and the final observations match depends on the state of the initial pattern. They can probably match or probably not. — Hillary

That's absolutely true. This is what precision and uncertainty are for. When our initial conditions are exactly the same, the output should be the same. There exist systems where this logic doesn't work perfectly though (Chaotic systems & Statistical systems like QM)

How much of what we know at a truly basic level is based on induction... We are not blank slates. — T Clark

This is true. I'm more trying to state that all of our knowledge/beliefs should be traceable via this inductive reasoning to some observable.

Problem is, almost everything we know above a certain level is based on what we've been told by others - all of science, history, current events, etc. What we can directly observe is severely restricted. — T Clark

That is true. I think the idea is that through the theory of mind and the fundamental epistemology, we should be able to trace the claims of others to sense data. When we can't we drop the belief. Credibility is really just a shortcut for saving time.

I think I get your overall point - you're describing a more or less formal process of induction. This part I don't get - You're trying to tie what you have to say back to the certainty of Descartes, but it doesn't work. I think, therefore I am, but that doesn't mean my experiences have any connection with an outside reality or even with a coherent internal reality. The same goes for my actions, if they are really even actions at all. If I even have a body. — T Clark

Thank you, that's a great point. I did some re-evaluation of this framework and found that we can't actually tie our beliefs to reality itself but we can assign truth statements to the pattern we observe with sense data.

---DEFINITIONS---
1. Belief ≡ models of reality that are believed to be true/mostly true
1a. A belief holds a value (x) WHERE 1=True (x measures the reliability of belief)
1b. IF a belief is not true THEN it holds a value (x). 1>x≥0
2. Tactus ≡ recognition-independent experiences
3. Affectus ≡ recognition-dependent experiences
4. Recognition ≡ a form of remembering characterized by a feeling of familiarity when something previously experienced is again encountered
4. Fundamental ≡ the first element in a series
5. Thought ≡ a present-tense engagement in logic
6. Experience ≡ tactus, affectus
7. Predictions ≡ the logical implications of a belief
8. Personal Imperative ≡ a predetermined set of wants (Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs)
9. Observations ≡ true tactus (tactus that correspond with reality)
---FUNDAMENTAL EPISTEMOLOGY---
1. I have thoughts
2. I have beliefs
4. I have tactus
5. I have affectus
6. Tactus are the most fundamental experience
9. I have a personal imperative: avoid bad tactus/affectus AND seek good tactus/affectus (EX: avoid pain, seek happiness)
10. IF my tactus continuously/repeatedly correlate with my beliefs, THEN the likelihood of my beliefs being true increases (EX: Belief - IF I eat, THEN I feel less hungry. IF I feel less hunger each time I eat, THEN my belief is more likely to be true)

It isn't that we observe reality but that we must interact with our tactus in order to satisfy our personal imperative. So we will never have that certainty but we build a framework of reality from the ground up using observation, models, and more observations (science). It is inherently probabilistic though, that is true.

Because they know is necessary. I want to put the question backwards: Are we ready to live on the truth? — javi2541997

What do you mean by this?