Report What exactly is "full validation" of an idea in Objectivism? in Metaphysics and Epistemology Posted July 19, 2018 · Edited July 19, 2018 by patrik 7-2321 Thanks for your comments. This is mainly in response to the comment by William O. After some reflection I must say that I actually find the notion that reduction is (or can be) induction or "Inductive" almost absurd. Mostly due to the fact that my understanding is that induction is hierarchical and must be performed bottom-up from the senses to the abstract, and reduction goes in the reverse order. When I reduce a proposition I conclude what must be established before what, in hierarchical order, for the proposition to be true. If it turns out that no reduction is possible, then there is some illogic in the proposition rendering it false (or possible arbitrary?). If a reduction is possible and logical, then the product I get is a series of concepts and/or propositions which I know in theory would have to be conceptually grasped or induced in ascending order, in order to finally induce the proposition I started with, thus deriving it from my own experience. When the final induction and/or stepwise concept-formation is completed, and when I have also integrated it logically with the rest of my knowledge, then I should have "completely" or "fully" validated and understood the proposition I started with - according to my understanding of Oist epistemology. This process necessitates that reduction is distinct from induction. Reduction is establishing the structure of a potential future induction that would in theory have to be made in order to reach the objective understanding that (and how) the starting proposition corresponds to reality. Before you do the induction, however, you haven't yet formed the concepts or induced the preliminary propositions which the original proposition depends on, and you do not have an objective understanding of its truth. All you have is a list of inductions and integrations that you know you would in theory have to be able to logically make in order for the starting proposition to be true - which you don't know yet. If that is indeed a correct picture of reduction and its relationship to induction, I do not see how reduction could be "a kind of induction", or "inductive" or similar. (I don't think the the genus or CCD of "reduction" is "induction".) If you "induce while reducing," and thereby try to grasp the truth and meaning of a proposition, aren't you thereby trying to gain knowledge in reverse hierarchical order, top-down? As I understand the hierarchy of knowledge, you have to grasp the "lower" elements (closer to the senses) before you can grasp the "higher" (more abstract), but reduction moves from the higher to the lower, so if you try to "induce while reducing" then aren't you inducing in the order opposite to the required one? If induction could be done from top to bottom, while reducing, why does Peikoff NOT do that in OTI, but instead reduces top-down, then reverses direction and induces bottom-up? His approach respects hierarchy as one would have to, it seems to me. Thoughts?