Induction is Wrong. A lot

[curi]

There are two particularly hard parts of explaining why induction is false. First, there are many refutations. Where do you start? Second, most refutations are targeted at professional philosophers. What most people mean by "induction" varies a great deal.

 

Most professional philosophers are strongly attached to the concept of induction and know what it is. Most people are strongly attached to the word "induction" and will redefine it in response to criticism.

 

In *The World of Parmenides*, Popper gives a short refutation of induction. It's updated from an article in Nature. It involves what most people would consider a bunch of tricky math. To seriously defend induction, doesn't one need to understand arguments like this and address them?

 

Some professional philosophers do read and respond to this kind of thing. You can argue with them. You can point out a mistake in their response. But what do you do with people who aren't familiar with the material and think it's above their head?

 

If you aren't familiar with this argument against induction, how do you know induction is any good? If you don't have a first hand understanding of both the argument and a mistake in it, then why take sides in favor of induction?

 

Actually, inductivists have more responses open to them than pointing out a mistake in the argument or rejecting induction (or evading, or pleading ignorance). Do you know what the other important option is? Or will you hear it for the first time from me in the next paragraph, and then adopt it as your position? I don't recommend getting your position on induction from someone who thinks induction is a mistake – all the defenses I bring up are things I already know about and I *still* consider induction to be mistaken.

 

Another option is to correctly point out that Popper's refutation only applies to some meanings of "induction", not all. It's possible to have a position on induction which is only refuted by other arguments, not by this particular one. I won't help you too much though. What do you have to mean by "induction" to not be refuted by this particular argument? What can't you mean? You figure it out.

 

Popper argues against induction in books like LScD, C&R, OK, RASc. Deutsch does in FoR and BoI. Should I repeat points which are already published? What for? If some inductivist doesn't care to read the literature, will my essay do any good? Why would it?

 

I recently spoke with some Objectivists who said they weren't in favor of enumerative induction. They were in favor of the other kind. What other kind? How does it work? Where are the details? They wouldn't say. How do you argue with that? Someone told me that OPAR solves the problem of induction. OPAR, like ITOE, actually barely mentions induction. Some other Objectivists were Bayesians. Never mind that Bayesian epistemology contradicts Objectivist epistemology. In any case, dealing with Bayesians is *different*.

 

One strategy is to elicit from people *their* ideas about induction, then address those. That poses several problems. For one thing, it means you have to write a personalized response to each person, not a single essay. (But we already have general purpose answers by Popper and Deutsch published, anyway.) Another problem is that most people's ideas about induction are vague. And they only successfully communicate a fraction of their ideas about it.

 

How do you argue with people who have only a vague notion of what "induction" is, but who are strongly attached to defending "induction"? They shouldn't be advocating induction at all without a better idea of what it means, let alone strongly.

 

There are many other difficulties as well. For example, no one has ever written a set of precise instructions for how to do induction. They will tell me that I do it every day, but they never give me any instructions so how am I supposed to do it even once? Well I do it without knowing it, they say. Well how do they know that? To decide I did induction, you'd have to first say what induction is (and how it works, and what actions do and don't constitute doing induction) and then compare what I did against induction. But they make no such comparison – or won't share it.

 

Often one runs into the idea that if you get some general theories, then you did induction. Period, the end. Induction means ANY method of getting general theories whatsoever. This vacuous definition helps explain why some people are so attached to "induction". But it is not the actual meaning of "induction" in philosophy which people have debated. Of course there is SOME way to get general theories – we know that because we have them – the issue is how do you do it? Induction is an attempt to give an answer to that, not a term to be attached to any answer to it.

 

And yet I will try. Again. But I would like suggestions about methods.

 

Induction says that we learn FROM observation data. Or at least from actively interpreted ideas about observation data. The induced ideas are either INFALLIBLE or SUPPORTED. The infallible version was refuted by Hume among others. As a matter of logic, inductive conclusions aren't infallibly proven. It doesn't work. Even if you think deduction or math is infallible (it's not), induction STILL wouldn't be infallible.

 

Infallible means error is ABSOLUTELY 100% IMPOSSIBLE. It means we'll never improve our idea about this. This is it, this is the final answer, the end, nothing more to learn. It's the end of thinking.

 

Although most Objectivists (and most people in general) are infallibilists, Objectivism rejects infallibilism. Many people are skeptical of this and often deny being infallibilists. Why? Because they are only infallibilists 1% of the time; most of their thinking, most of the time, doesn't involve infallibilism. But that makes you an infallibilist. It's just like if you only think 1% of haunted houses really have a ghost, you are superstitious.

 

So suppose induction grants fallible support. We still haven't said how you do induction, btw. But, OK, what does fallible support mean? What does it do? What do you do with it? What good is it?

 

Support is only meaningful and useful if it helps you differentiate between different ideas. It has to tell you that idea X is better than idea Y which is better than idea Z. Each idea has an amount of support on a continuum and the ones with more support are better.

 

Apart from this not working in the first place (how much support is assigned to which idea by which induction? there's no answer), it's also irrational. You have these various ideas which contradict each other, and you declare one "better" in some sense without resolving the contradiction. You must deal with the contradiction. If you don't know how to address the contradiction then you don't know which is right. Picking one is arbitrary and irrational.

 

Maybe X is false and Y is true. You don't know. What does it matter that X has more support?

 

Why does X have more support anyway? Every single piece of data you have to induce from does not contradict Y. If it did contradict Y, Y would be refuted instead of having some lesser amount of support. Every single piece of data is consistent with both X and Y. It has the same relationship with X and with Y. So why does Y have more support?

 

So what really happens if you approach this rationally is everything that isn't refuted has exactly the same amount of support. Because it is compatible with exactly the same data set. So really there are only two categories of ideas: refuted and non-refuted. And that isn't induction. I shouldn't have to say this, but I do. That is not induction. That is Popper. That is a rejection of induction. That is something different. If you want to call that "induction" then the word "induction" loses all meaning and there's no word left to refer to the wrong ideas about epistemology.

 

Why would some piece of data that is consistent with both X and Y support X over Y? There is no answer and never has been. (Unless X and Y are themselves probabilistic theories. If X says that a piece of data is 90% likely and Y says it's 20% likely, then if that data is observed the Bayesians will start gloating. They'd be wrong. That's another story. But why should I tell it? You wouldn't have thought of this objection yourself. You only know about it because I told you, and I'm telling you it's wrong. Anyway, for now just accept that what I'm talking about works with all regular ideas that actually assert things about reality instead of having built-in maybes.)

 

Also, the idea of support really means AUTHORITY. Induction is one of the many attempts to introduce authority into epistemology.

 

Authority in epistemology is abused in many ways. For example, some people think their idea has so much authority that if there is a criticism of it, that doesn't matter. It'd take like 5 criticisms to reduce its authority to the point where they might reject it. This is blatantly irrational. If there is a mistake in your idea it's wrong. You can't accept or evade any contradictions, any mistakes. None. Period.

 

Just the other day a purported Objectivist said he was uncomfortable that if there is one criticism of an idea then that's decisive. He didn't say why. I know why. Because that leaves no room for authority. But I've seen this a hundred times. It's really common.

 

If no criticism is ever ignored, the authority never actually gets to do anything. Irrationally ignoring criticism is the main purpose of authority in epistemology. Secondary purposes include things like intimidating people into accepting your idea.

 

But wait, you say, induction is a method of MAKING theories. We still need it for that even if it doesn't grant them support/authority.

 

Well, is it really a method of making theories? There's a big BLANK OUT in the part of induction where it's supposed to actually tell you what to do to make some theories. What is step one? What is step two? What always fills in this gap is intuition, common sense, and sometimes, for good measure, some fallacies (like that correlation implies or hints at causation).

 

In other words, induction means think of theories however (varies from person to person), call it "induction", and never consider or examine or criticize or improve your methods of thinking (since you claim to be using a standard method, no introspection is necessary).

 

For any set of data, infinitely many general conclusions are logically compatible. Many people try to deny this. As a matter of logic they are just wrong. (Some then start attacking logic itself and have the audacity to call themselves Objectivists). Should I go into this? Should I give an example? If I give an example, everyone will think the example is STUPID. It will be. So what? Logic doesn't care what sounds dumb. And I said infinitely many general conclusions, not infinitely many general conclusions that are wise. Of course most of them are dumb ideas.

 

So now a lot of people are thinking: induce whichever one isn't dumb. Not the dumb ones. That's how you pick.

 

Well, OK, and how do you decide what's dumb? That takes thinking. So in order to do induction (as it's just been redefined), in one of the steps, you have to think. That means we don't think by induction. Thinking is a prerequisite for induction (as just redefined), so induction can't be part of thinking.

 

What happens here is the entirety of non-inductivist epistemology is inserted as one of the steps of induction and is the only reason it works. All the induction stuff is unnecessary and unhelpful. Pick good ideas instead of dumb ones? We could have figured that out without induction, it's not really helping.

 

Some people will persevere. They will claim that it's OBVIOUS which ideas are dumb or not – no thinking required. What does that mean? It means they can figure it out in under 3 seconds. This is silly. Under 3 seconds of thinking is still thinking.

 

Do you see what I mean about there are so many things wrong with induction it's hard to figure out where to start? And it's hard to go through them in an orderly progression because you start talking about something and there's two more things wrong in the middle. And here I am on this digression because most defenses of induction – seriously this is the standard among non-professionals – involve a denial of logic.

 

So backing up, supposedly induction helps us make theories. How? Which ones? By what steps do we do it? No answers. And how am I supposed to prove a negative? How do I write an essay saying "induction has no answers"? People will say I'm ignorant and if only I read the right book I'd see the answer. People will say that just because we don't know the answer doesn't mean there isn't one. (And remember that refutation of induction I mentioned up top? Remember Popper's arguments that induction is impossible? They won't have read any of that, let alone refuted it.)

 

And I haven't even mentioned some of the severe flaws in induction. Induction as originally intended – and it's still there but it varies, some people don't do this or aren't attached to it – meant you actually read the book of nature. You get rid of all your prejudices and biases and empty your mind and then you read the answers straight FROM the observation data. Sound like a bad joke? Well, OK, but it's an actual method of how to do induction. It has instructions and steps you could follow, rather than evasion. If you think it's a bad joke, how much better is it to replace those concrete steps with vagueness and evasion?

 

Many more subtle versions of this way of thinking are still popular today. The idea of emptying your mind and then surely you'll see the truth isn't so popular. But the idea that data can hint or lead or point is still popular. But completely false. Observation data is inactive and passive. Further, there's so much of it. Human thinking is always selective and active. You decide which data to focus on, and which ways to approach the issue, and what issues to care about, and so on. Data has to be interpreted, by you, and then it is you interpretations, not the data itself, which may give you hints or leads. To the extent data seems to guide you, it's always because you added guidance into the data first. It isn't there in the raw data.

 

Popper was giving a lecture and at the start he said, "Observe!" People said, "Observe what?" There is no such thing as emptying your mind and just observing and being guided by the data. First you must think, first you must have ideas about what you're looking for. You need interests, problems, expectations, ideas. Then you can observe and look for relevant data.

 

The idea that we learn FROM observation is flawed in another way. It's not just that thinking comes first (which btw again means we can't think by induction since we have to think BEFORE we have useful data). It also misstates the role of data in thinking. Observations can contradict things (via arguments, not actually directly). They can rule things out. If the role of data is to rule things out, then whatever positive ideas we have we didn't learn from the data. What we learned from the data, in any sense, is which things to reject, not which to accept.

 

Final point. Imagine a graph with a bunch of dots on it. Those are data points. And imagine a line connecting the dots would be a theory that explained them. This is a metaphor. Say there are a hundred points. How many ways can you draw a line connecting them? Answer: infinitely many. If you don't get that, think about it. You could take a detour anywhere on the coordinate plane between any two connections.

 

So we have this graph and we're connecting the dots. Induction says: connect the dots and what you get is supported, it's a good theory. How do I connect them? It doesn't say. How do people do it? They will draw a straight line, or something close to that, or make it so you get a picture of a cow, or whatever else seems intuitive or obvious to them. They will use common sense or something – and never figure out the details of how that works and whether they are philosophically defensible and so on.

 

People will just draw using unstated theories about which types of lines to prefer. That's not a method of thinking, it's a method of not thinking.

 

They will rationalize it. They may say they drew the most "simple" line and that's Occam's razor. When confronted with the fact that other people have different intuitions about what lines look simple, they will evade or attack those people. But they've forgotten that we're trying to explain how to think in the first place. If understanding Occam's razor and simplicity and stuff is a part of induction and thinking, then it has to be done without induction. So all this understanding and stuff has to come prior to induction. So really the conclusion is we don't think by induction, we have a whole method of thinking which works and is a prerequisite for induction. Induction wouldn't solve epistemology, it'd presuppose epistemology.

 

What we really know, from the graph with the data points, is that all lines which don't go through every point are wrong. We rule out a lot. (Yes, there's always the possibility of our data having errors. That's a big topic I'm not going to go into. Regardless, the possibility of data errors does not help induction's case!)

 

And what about the many lines which aren't ruled out by the data? That's where philosophy comes in! We don't and can't learn everything from the data. Data is useful but isn't the answer. We always have to think and do philosophy to learn. We need criticisms. Yes, lots of those lines are "dumb". There are things wrong with them. We can use criticism to rule them out.

 

And then people will start telling me how inconvenient and roundabout that is. But it's the only way that works. And it's not inconvenient. Since it's the only way that works, it's what you do when you think successfully. Do you find thinking inconvenient? No? Then apparently you can do critical thinking in a convenient, intuitive, fast way.

 

At least you can do critical thinking when you're not irrational defending "induction" because in your mind it has authority.

Edited July 10, 2013 by curi

[Harrison Danneskjold]

How can you be sure that anything exists beyond your own mind?  Why?

 

  Step 1: Observe

This consists of experiencing and actively paying attention to sensations.  When anything (sensation, perception or concept) correlates with anything else, notice it.

  Step 2:  Find correlations

Raw sensations are a stream of constant and dynamic changes.  Whenever these changes happen simultaneously, or a past one resembles a new one, they 'correlate' with each other.

Most correlations are sheer coincidence and should only be noted, in passing.

  Step 3:  Remember correlations; perpetually reinterpret old observations

Organize correlative things (sensations, percepts, concepts) according to the frequency and consistency of their correlation.  There is a rule of thumb for this:

"Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me."  "The first time a guy calls you a horse. . ."

Correlations are organized according to frequency and consistency (the 'strength' if you will) across a continuum, from coincidence to causation.

 

With causal relations, the independent variable is chosen according to temporal primacy.  Whatever happens first is the cause.

 

By consistently remembering all previously-noted correlations and their particular strength, one moves from specific experiences to generalizations:

"When the cat's face moved, I heard a noise."

"There- it happened again.  The cat's face moved exactly when I heard the noise."

. . . .

 

"The cat says meow."

 

If not then does the cat say meow? 

[Harrison Danneskjold]

It doesn't matter how many causes of "meow" you eliminate; there are an infinite number of potential causes and thusly, without generalizations, you can NEVER tell me that the cat causes it.

And if generalizations are invalid then past experience truly doesn't tell us anything about the future (in which case learning to speak, learning to walk and learning that objects have three dimensions and weight- was all fallacious).  If so then I invite you to practice what you preach and stop making arbitrary assumptions.

 

Popper's essay wanted my money before I could read it.  Sorry, but there are quite a few Objectivist books I'm still waiting to buy; I won't pay to read your link.

[Mikee]

"You get rid of all your prejudices and biases and empty your mind and then you read the answers straight FROM the observation data."

 

I see you repeat Popper's bad scholarship on this issue. The rest of your post is an exaggeration of the role that criticism plays.

Edited July 11, 2013 by Mikee

[Eiuol]

First off, just saying "induction is wrong a lot" says nothing at all about a particular theory of induction, so at best you can say "most people are wrong about induction". Coming from you especially, "a lot" is weak in terms of a title. You have been quite clear that mere volume of information on its own cannot tell you what is true or false. Okay, it's wrong a lot - but does that speak towards a theory of induction, or induction in principle as figuring out some generalized abstraction that is true? Just as I could say "morality is wrong a lot", it's different if I mean a particular theory of morality or if if I mean morality in principle as figuring out what is good and bad. I typed this up as my first thought of why I don't like the title. If the main thrust of your argument is that induction as a concept is misleading, so it's better to just think of new theories of knowledge altogether, well, I'll get to that.

What would help if you point out a specific epistemological mistake(s) the inductivists (as you call them) are making. That way, I don't need to concern myself about all the various theories of induction, and focus instead on a specific error. Sort of like how Rand pointed out specific errors she noticed about stances people take on the "problem" of universals. I'm not really even sure what expectation people have of induction that you find either a) unnecessary or b ) impossible to achieve. Be specific, because I really don't know. All I can say is "yeah, a lot of people are wrong. So?" If induction is wrong because it's seeking a holy grail of knowledge that doesn't exist, then induction is doomed to fail in the long run. You have a decent list of issues (at first), but no clear explanation of who an inductivist except "one who claims they like induction".

This reminds me of someone saying "if you don't think the big bang as the starting point of existence, and you don't have any, you must be in favor of another kind". All that means is one particular theory is bad, but that doesn't require spontaneously coming up with a new idea. Even you seem to support that coming up with a criticism is good, even if it takes some time to think up a new idea. Perhaps a new idea will hit me in a dream in a few days. Who knows. You don't argue with it at all! What you can do you present a new idea, which you've attempted to do, but in my estimation just don't have even a helpful alternative theory. That whole Clue discussion just seemed to be arguing in favor of counterarguments that are in practice exactly what some have advocated here, including me. Some theories are just more sensible to look into first, and making 1 positive choice *implies* a negative choice for every other possibility you had thought of.

By the way, although you might not be saying that I'm a Bayesian, I explicitly do not think that Bayesian inference can provide knowledge. I specifically said Bayesian inference is *only* any good for using it a way to figure out what hypothesis you want to begin with first. You could arbitrarily choose from a set of hypotheses, or you could choose a hypothesis on just some fast intuition. If you hear footsteps down the hall, it's possible that it's a burglar, or a coworker. You could just go to thinking "coworker" as a possibility, and go from there. The issue with Bayesian inference as a proposed means to knowledge is that it *cannot* provide certainty. I just consider it useful to use Bayesian inference weakly, so you won't need to consider all possibilities on equal grounds. Nothing stronger than that.

"Maybe X is false and Y is true. You don't know. What does it matter that X has more support?"
Fortunately, no one should be using this language of support anyway. And anyway, I only really use the word support in the sense of having a non-arbitrary reason to think X. If I am certain about something, I would say something more like "X is true because it follows from facts Z and Y". I would say "A is supported by N, M, P" for a hypothesis. Sometimes I should be more careful in this wording in my life, but I'm clarifying here that the sense of support you mean is the sense of support I mean. Support to me means "some reason to start on a preliminary piece of knowledge", nothing else. What you're doing is decently refuting how to *complete* a process of induction. What you didn't refute is using at least *some* amount of modal logic, which would include inference, "maybe", "possibly", "perhaps", etc. Modal words like that are fine as long as one doesn't say *based* on that alone that they've reached truth. It's just step one.

"So what really happens if you approach this rationally is everything that isn't refuted has exactly the same amount of support. Because it is compatible with exactly the same data set. So really there are only two categories of ideas: refuted and non-refuted. And that isn't induction."
Why does this mean induction is *ruled out*? All I see is you saying that thinking rationally at least using compatible elements within a data set. True. And if you stop there, it's not induction. Also true. Your point is...?

"He didn't say why. I know why."
You're a mind reader now?

"For any set of data, infinitely many general conclusions are logically compatible."
Only in states of uncertainty, so in that sense, yeah, many are logically compatible. If I'm 80% sure of Y and 20% sure if X, both are indeed logically compatible. Doesn't mean one should stop there, nor does it mean to avoid modality at all costs.

"So now a lot of people are thinking: induce whichever one isn't dumb. Not the dumb ones. That's how you pick."
Strawman!

"There's a big BLANK OUT in the part of induction where it's supposed to actually tell you what to do to make some theories. "
Using a rhetorical advice from Atlas Shrugged (where to context is totally different) in argumentation!

"They will claim that it's OBVIOUS which ideas are dumb or not "
Strawman!

"How? Which ones? By what steps do we do it? No answers"
I'm going to coin a new fallacy. The fallacy of immediacy. "If one doesn't have an *immediate* and *well-formed* and *complete* answer, they are wrong." Sorry, I don't have a complete answer.

"There is no such thing as emptying your mind and just observing and being guided by the data."
Yup! One's mind isn't passive, understanding the world isn't passive. I swear, Peikoff made a very similar joke as the "Observe!" in one of his lectures.

"It's not just that thinking comes first "
Confusing. Does perception come first? Does cognition come first? I don't think it's a good question, nor do I think it's useful to say thinking is first. First compared to *what*?

"Induction says: connect the dots and what you get is supported,"
Strawm... Dotman fallacy!

"We can use criticism to rule them out."
No one said criticism is to be avoided.

"But it's the only way that works."
It doesn't work for language learning in infants. So...

You started out okay, then it started to look like a lot of sophistry.

Edited July 11, 2013 by Eiuol

[Harrison Danneskjold]

I'm going to coin a new fallacy. The fallacy of immediacy. "If one doesn't have an *immediate* and *well-formed* and *complete* answer, they are wrong." Sorry, I don't have a complete answer.

Actually, that's an intriguing thought.

 

There's a very fine line between identifying an act of evasion, and demanding omniscience. . .

[curi]

How can you be sure that anything exists beyond your own mind?  Why?

 

  Step 1: Observe

This consists of experiencing and actively paying attention to sensations.  When anything (sensation, perception or concept) correlates with anything else, notice it.

  Step 2:  Find correlations

Raw sensations are a stream of constant and dynamic changes.  Whenever these changes happen simultaneously, or a past one resembles a new one, they 'correlate' with each other.

Most correlations are sheer coincidence and should only be noted, in passing.

Find which correlations?

 

How can correlations be found without thinking? Or does your approach to induction presuppose one is already able to think, so it cannot explain thinking?

[curi]

Eioul,

 

The title "epistemology is wrong. a lot" wouldn't make sense. Induction is a particular theory of epistemology (actually several) which is wrong (all of them are wrong).

[Harrison Danneskjold]

How can correlations be found without thinking? Or does your approach to induction presuppose one is already able to think, so it cannot explain thinking?

Induction requires memory and selective attention; nothing more.

 

So, for instance, certain animals are perfectly capable of induction; in my opinion it very much resembles Pavlov's dogs and the underlying mechanism they displayed.

[bell-food once, bell-food twice; bell a third time- where's the food?  That's induction]

 

But could Pavlov's dogs calculate the workings of universal gravitation, or question whether induction actually works at all?  No- because while they can form percepts (which is all classical conditioning is) they cannot take the next, volitional step into concepts.

[curi]

How is selective attention accomplished without presupposing thinking?

[Eiuol]

The title "epistemology is wrong. a lot" wouldn't make sense. Induction is a particular theory of epistemology (actually several) which is wrong (all of them are wrong).

Saying "each one is wrong" does not mean "induction in principle is wrong-headed". Anyway, it's a minor point. The second paragraph I wrote is particularly important.

[Nicky]

Haven't read the thread, but I love the title. As if the idea that "induction is wrong" could be the result of anything but a process of induction.

 

If you aren't familiar with this argument against induction, how do you know induction is any good?

I tested it.

[curi]

To test induction you'd first have to know what induction is. You'd have to have a specification of the steps to perform induction and then follow them and see what happens. One of the problems with induction is there is no such step by step method to do it. So you didn't test it.

[Nicky]

To test induction you'd first have to know what induction is. You'd have to have a specification of the steps to perform induction and then follow them and see what happens. One of the problems with induction is there is no such step by step method to do it. So you didn't test it.

Did you just claim that I never performed induction in my whole life? That no one has? Edited July 11, 2013 by Nicky

[curi]

Sort of. Induction being a myth that no one has ever done is well known to be Popper's position. It is mine too.

 

However, abstractly-logically, it's possible that people do induction but you still can't test it, because you don't know when you've done it or not.

Edited July 11, 2013 by curi

[Nicky]

Sort of. Induction being a myth that no one has ever done is well known to be Popper's position. It is mine too.

Ok, well, then don't worry about it. If no one's ever done it, and no one ever wrote it down, then it doesn't really even exist, does it? So what's the problem? Why say that something that doesn't exist is wrong? Why not just title the thread "induction doesn't exist"?

However, abstractly-logically, it's possible that people do induction

You understand how this squarely contradicts your previous sentence, right?

Yes, it's possible that people do induction. I've done it. It works. It's good. It's great, in fact, I owe it everything I have.

Edited July 11, 2013 by Nicky

[Harrison Danneskjold]

How is selective attention accomplished without presupposing thinking?

 Presumably however infants originally do so.

 

But alright; let's say it DOES presuppose thinking.  Now, how did we arrive at that conclusion, except by. . . ?

 

"Focus=thought" regardless of its falsehood, is a generalization derived from specifics.  Your objection TO induction PRESUPPOSES INDUCTION.

Shall we count the ways you inducted during the original post, alone?

Edited July 11, 2013 by Harrison Danneskjold

[Harrison Danneskjold]

 When someone looks at you and declares that induction works splendidly, you may (or may not) choose to focus on it.

You may focus on the content of the statement and contemplate the act of induction.  You may be reminded of something similar that someone else said, long ago.  You may dismiss the entire issue by making some trivial pun and be none the wiser.

There are many, many decisions you must make along the way.

 

When someone throws a dodgeball at your face, it is not the same.  You WILL focus on it or it WILL hurt you; selective attention precedes induction which precedes VOLITIONAL attention.

 

When you tell me that focus=thought, you are dodging something on an entirely different scale from dodgeballs.  Stop it.

Edited July 11, 2013 by Harrison Danneskjold

[curi]

I only presupposed induction on the premise that induction is how we think, generalize, or anything else. But I rejected that premise. There are other ways to accomplish everything induction supposedly could achieve.

 

Also you seem to have a premise (it's a bit unclear, you didn't try very hard to explain) that infants learn without thinking. (Or maybe you don't think infants learn? I don't know.) I don't agree and don't know why you think that.

[dream_weaver]

You understand how this squarely contradicts your previous sentence, right?

 

Now is providing proof of an error a P[r]opper form of criticism?

 

edit: Darn emoticons   

Edited July 12, 2013 by dream_weaver

[Eiuol]

Curi, I'd be interested in a reply to my second paragraph because it's really hard to tell what your point is. What does induction supposedly achieve? What do inductivists (as you call them) claim can be done but actually cannot? It's fine to say how some people reason badly, but what about induction in principle is wrong? I'm not even sure we're talking about the same thing. If you didn't use the word induction at all, how would you phrase the issue you have? For the most part, I consider any induction to be the process of developing a premise and acquiring new knowledge. Even what you call "creativity" for coming up with new ideas I call induction. It may be right or wrong.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Also you seem to have a premise (it's a bit unclear, you didn't try very hard to explain) that infants learn without thinking.

 Yes.

No newborn infant in the entire world has a grasp of abstract ideas, or of perceptions [three-dimensional objects with integrated image, texture, sounds, etc.] and they learn these by observation and reflexive attention; the same way you reflexively concentrate on any object which approaches you rapidly.

If infants were born with innate ideas already present then they would simply emerge from the womb, stand up and start looking for a job.  The fact that there is a developmental stage at all refutes any variation of such.

 

 

I only presupposed induction on the premise that induction is how we think, generalize, or anything else. But I rejected that premise. There are other ways to accomplish everything induction supposedly could achieve.

 Then explain your alternative.

 

Because sofar you've provided a diverse and robust assortment of "somehow" and "not induction".  (Note that this observation is, itself, an act of induction)  "There are other ways" is a generalization from specifics (your conceived alternative) and as such is induction.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

 How do you know that the dog says "woof"?

[curi]

ok Eiuol.

 

Curi, I'd be interested in a reply to my second paragraph because it's really hard to tell what your point is. What does induction supposedly achieve?

 

Knowledge.

 

What do inductivists (as you call them) claim can be done but actually cannot?

 

They have a large number of claims and I brought up a bunch in my essay.

 

if you have a claim i didn't address, feel free to bring it up.

 

It's fine to say how some people reason badly, but what about induction in principle is wrong?

 

I gave a bunch of answers to that in my essay as well as some sources with more arguments. if you want an answer to a particular principle of induction or theory of induction, you tell me what your principle or theory of induction is that you want an answer to. then i'll answer that one in particular.

 

 

I'm not even sure we're talking about the same thing. If you didn't use the word induction at all, how would you phrase the issue you have? For the most part, I consider any induction to be the process of developing a premise and acquiring new knowledge. Even what you call "creativity" for coming up with new ideas I call induction. It may be right or wrong.

 

It sounds like you've never really read anything about induction by either supporters or opponents (note that neither ITOE or OPAR says much of anything about induction). I can understand being confused from that standpoint. But, well, so what? What do you care? if you're interested read what popper says about it and what some inductivist says about it and then see what you think.

 

btw the dictionary gives, "inference of a generalized conclusion from particular instances" which is basically good enough, close enough. this idea is wrong. and this idea is not any "process of developing a premise and acquiring new knoweldge" nor is it "creativity". http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/induction

 

What would help if you point out a specific epistemological mistake(s) the inductivists (as you call them) are making. That way, I don't need to concern myself about all the various theories of induction, and focus instead on a specific error. Sort of like how Rand pointed out specific errors she noticed about stances people take on the "problem" of universals.

 

I pointed out a number of specific errors in the essay so I don't really get the question. But maybe I've now answered it above.

 

I'm not really even sure what expectation people have of induction that you find either a) unnecessary or b ) impossible to achieve. Be specific, because I really don't know. All I can say is "yeah, a lot of people are wrong. So?" If induction is wrong because it's seeking a holy grail of knowledge that doesn't exist, then induction is doomed to fail in the long run. You have a decent list of issues (at first), but no clear explanation of who an inductivist except "one who claims they like induction".

 

here is a partial list of indications you're an inductivist:

 

- you think the future will resemble the past

- you think correlation (or patterns) implies causation

- you think correlation (or patterns) hints at causation

- you think correlation points in the direction of good ideas

- you think there's only one or a couple possible ideas compatible with any given data set

- you think data leads us to good theories

- you think we "learn from experience" in some kind of direct or concrete way, as an actual philosophical idea

- you think observations come before ideas in an epistemological hierarchy

- you think bayesian stuff is important to epistemology

- you've read inductivist philosophers, know what they say, and think they're right

- you've read inductivist philosophers and some criticism (like hume's or russell's) and think induction apparently not working is a huge problem for epistemology (David Deutsch calls this being a crypto-inductivist. it's a lot like being an inductivist. see his book The Fabric of Reality)

- you think observing the same thing a large number of times is valuable

- you think criticisms of your positions can be ignored if you have enough support for your position so the criticism could only weaken your support but not refute it (it'd take 5 criticisms to refute you, or something)

- you think we "generalize" or data/observations to create or "induce" general theories

- you hate Popper

- you think that you should open/empty your mind as much as possible and observe without bias and that's key to learning

- you say stuff like "the sun rose the last 10 days so it'll rise tomorrow" (and get mad if anyone doubts that)

- you think a denial of induction implies skepticism

- you think evidence supports ideas, and the more evidence the greater the degree of support (yes i'm aware everyone thinks this. yet it's wrong. in short: evidence contradicts and rules out ideas. it does not differentiate between the ideas that it doesn't contradict or rule out. it doesn't provide degrees of support.)

 

Here's another version I wrote in 2010:

 

In short, induction is about ideas like: correlations or patterns in data hint at causations, ideas can/should be based on evidence, the future resembles the past, we should begin science by gathering data, we learn (directly) from experience, and large data sets are reliable. Induction says we generalize a bunch of particulars into universal statements, but this generalization process is an impossibility and a myth, and it says we support or confirm theories with more evidence. There are more exact/specific versions, e.g. Bacon's, and a Bayesian variety, but inductivists vary quite a bit in their beliefs so it's best explained as a bunch of similar/related ideas.

[curi]

Harrison Danneskjold,

 

"Then explain your alternative."

 

"How do you know that the dog says "woof"?"

 

There is literature which explains it. It is your choice not to read it. (The books of Karl Popper and David Deutsch.)

 

I have extensive essays, blog posts, emails, which also explain it. Again it's your choice not to read them. (http://www.curi.us http://fallibleideas.com http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fallible-ideas/ like in my signature. if you finish that material i'll be happy to show you a lot more).

 

If you want further explanation then I suggest either:

 

1) read what i or others already wrote that isn't on this website

 

or

 

2) ask some specific question i might be interested in answering. stuff along the lines of "explain epistemology to me." is not very motivating for me, especially without any reason given for choosing not to study the literature (mine or others)

 

or

 

3) wait. i'm writing more essays. i can't say everything at once.