What is induction?

[stephen_speicher]

I'm not sure why people argue that inductive is more important than deductive logic. The ONLY difference between inductive and deductive logic is that inductive logic is an unsound argument. Why would unsoundness be useful or valuable?

And by what logical process did you reach that conclusion?

[DavidOdden]

I'm not sure why people argue that inductive is more important than deductive logic. The ONLY difference between inductive and deductive logic is that inductive logic is an unsound argument. Why would unsoundness be useful or valuable?

Aha! As I suspected. You don't understand inductive reasoning. It even looks like you don't understand the distinction between "sound" and "valid" (I spit upon the distinction).

Before you wander too far into the wilderness, would you care to explain what you consider the proper means of determining "importance" to be? Is "important" a 1-place predicate or a 2-place predicate?

[MisterSwig]

I'm not sure why people argue that inductive is more important than deductive logic.

Because deductions rely on premises that can only be validated inductively.

Let's assume that we begin a deductive argument with the general fact: All birds are warm-blooded. Well, how did we arrive at that knowledge? Is this something we all just agreed upon and took on faith? No. This fact and countless others have been proven inductively by scientists. Without the benefit of inductive reasoning we'd probably still be living in caves.

[Bowzer]

The ONLY difference between inductive and deductive logic is that inductive logic is an unsound argument.

And how many arguments did you examine to arrive at this conclusion? (This is a rhetorical question.)

[Jason Fowler]

I see your post here is related to another thread on maths. You claimed that all of math is deductive, not true. Put simply, an equation like ohm's law(current = voltage / resistance) is formulated inductively and applied deductively.

Ohm's law, or any mathematical proofs for that matter, do not simply exist somewhere written in stone waiting to be found.... that must be discovered by someone. You assume induction is "unsound", how then are these proofs and equations to be formulated?

I suggest you study a bit of Objectivist epistemology(OPAR) and look up Rand's/Peikoff's definitions of induction/deduction

[nimble]

I see your post here is related to another thread on maths.  You claimed that all of math is deductive, not true. Put simply, an equation like ohm's law(current = voltage  / resistance) is formulated inductively and applied deductively. 

Ohm's law, or any mathematical proofs for that matter, do not simply exist somewhere written in stone waiting to be found.... that must be discovered by someone.  You assume induction is "unsound", how then are these proofs and equations to be formulated? 

I suggest you study a bit of Objectivist epistemology(OPAR) and look up Rand's/Peikoff's definitions of induction/deduction

ohm's law is a science endeavor, not mathematic. But I think our distinction between what I view as inductive and what others view as inductive is different, so we are talking about different concepts yet using the same word. Sorry about the confusion.

[stephen_speicher]

But I think our distinction between what I view as inductive and what others view as inductive is different, so we are talking about different concepts yet using the same word.

What then did you mean when you used the word "induction?"

[nimble]

My word induction has to deal with the structure of the argument. If its form is valid (it is logically impossible for the conclusion to be false if the premises are true) then it is deductive, if its form is invalid then it is inductive.

[stephen_speicher]

My word induction has to deal with the structure of the argument. If its form is valid (it is logically impossible for the conclusion to be false if the premises are true) then it is deductive, if its form is invalid then it is inductive.

That is utterly bizarre. Where are you getting such nonsense from?

[DavidOdden]

That is utterly bizarre. Where are you getting such nonsense from?

Indiana, he sez.

[nimble]

I wouldnt mind it if you guys weren't so condecending. If my university sources are misleading or false please explain why, instead of indulging in sarcasm to degrade me. That is rhetoric when you attack the speaker or ANYTHING besides the argument. What source or person created your definition of induction, which philosophical work? I'll read it and determine it for myself.

[DavidOdden]

I wouldnt mind it if you guys weren't so condecending. If my university sources are misleading or false please explain why, instead of indulging in sarcasm to degrade me. That is rhetoric when you attack the speaker or ANYTHING besides the argument. What source or person created your definition of induction, which philosophical work? I'll read it and determine it for myself.

When you provide us with your actual sources, any number of people here myself included will be very happy to explain the problem. The burden rests on you to provide those sources for inspection. We've provided sufficient evidence already that your deconstruction of the concept induction is in serious error. If you persist in making erroneous claims and continue to refuse to fully reveal your sources, then you're abandoning reason, in which case no rational interaction with you is possible. If this source of yours is objectively inspectable it is possible to explain either the source of your error, or their error. So I'm informing you that until you come clean on your source of misinformation, I find this interaction to be be and not worth any more of my time.

[nimble]

I have an article by the Indiana University Press. I have an Irving M Copi and Carl Cohen Twelfth Edition "Introduction to Logic." And 4 Professors that Ive emailed about this that all say the same thing about Induction.

[nimble]

And again you side stepped my question? WHO OR FROM WHERE DID YOU GET YOUR DEFINITION OF INDUCTION? What piece of philosophic work is it from?

[MisterSwig]

I have an article by the Indiana University Press. I have an Irving M Copi and Carl Cohen Twelfth Edition "Introduction to Logic." And 4 Professors that Ive emailed about this that all say the same thing about Induction.

Can you perhaps quote the definition from your book?

Here is a definition of induction that I found:

"The process of deriving general principles from particular facts or instances."

Source: The American Heritage College Dictionary, Fourth Edition

[DavidOdden]

I have an article by the Indiana University Press. I have an Irving M Copi and Carl Cohen Twelfth Edition "Introduction to Logic." And 4 Professors that Ive emailed about this that all say the same thing about Induction.

We don't care about email you get from your professors. There is no "article by the Indiana Univesity Press". I will try to get a copy of Copi & Cohen 12th edition. If you can get a copy of the 11th edition and verify that the quotes are also there, I can do likewise. (Getting the 12th edition may take longer, apparently). Or if you would care to reveal the details of this supposed article written by Indiana University Press and if I can get a copy, we can shift attention to that.

[nimble]

http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/~alex/teaching.../abduction5.pdf

this is the Arizona State University that has this in its website.

http://www.hcc.hawaii.edu/~pine/Book2/chap3EL.htm

This is a hawaiian college that provided this (it cited the university of indiana press, sorry for the confusion)

I see where you are coming from but at the same time I think you ignore a few things. This is an example of an inductive argument.

EXAMPLE 3-5

Most presidents of the United States did not die in office. Therefore, it is doubtful that the twelfth president of the United States died in office.

Notice that it goes from general to particular, this is the only reason I don't like your definition because your definition can be wrong if the argument is as it is above. (this is from the second site i cited)

[nimble]

Can you perhaps quote the definition from your book?

Here is a definition of induction that I found:

"The process of deriving general principles from particular facts or instances."

Source: The American Heritage College Dictionary, Fourth Edition

Thats not a bad definition...but does anyone have a definite theoretical definition instead of a lexical one?

[stephen_speicher]

Indiana, he sez.

Indiana Jones?

[nimble]

Indiana Jones?

What? This is what I am talking about. I am trying to sort out some misunderstanding between what every college professor and intro to logic book I've found says about induction, and what you are telling me. And all you guys give is smart ass remarks and 'I am right because I am right. Now you go find out why I am right' type of arguments. Please help me, I'm trying to understand why there is such a big gap between your beliefs and everyone elses. If you could cite philosophical text where induction is defined...i think bacon invented it, so I would assume that my sources are correct, which quote bacon, but if not let me know.

[Bowzer]

Dr. Peikoff has given the fundamentals of the art of induction in his audio course, Induction in Philosophy and Physics. I have only been through the course once but perhaps someone familiar with this material can give a terse summary.

[stephen_speicher]

I wouldnt mind it if you guys weren't so condecending. If my university sources are misleading or false please explain why, instead of indulging in sarcasm to degrade me. That is rhetoric when you attack the speaker or ANYTHING besides the argument.

I did not attack you. I stated that your use of "induction" was bizarre and nonsensical, which, in fact, it is. It is the sort of nonsense that, on a somewhat higher and deeper level, is promulgated by the likes of Popper and Popperians, i.e., the attempt to translate the so-called "problem of induction" into a problem denying validity of general inferences from particular ones . That entire approach is bizarre and nonsensical.

What source or person created your definition of induction, which philosophical work? I'll read it and determine it for myself.

You can start at the beginning by reading Aristotle: "induction is a passage from individuals to universals." (Topics, Book I, Part 12.) Topics and Rhetoric both have a lot to say about induction. You can follow induction through Bacon, Hume, and Kant, but even the current darling influences, such as Popper (who is said to have put "the fear of God" into inductivists), states what induction is as he opposes it:

"According to a widely accepted view -- to be opposed in this book -- the empirical sciences can be characterized by the fact that they use 'inductive methods, as they are called.... It is usual to call an inference 'inductive' if it passes from singular statements (sometimes called 'particular' statements), such as accounts of the results of observations or experiments, to universal statements, such as hypotheses or theories." (Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery,, pp. 3-4, Routledge, 2003 {1935}.

[stephen_speicher]

I have an article by the Indiana University Press. I have an Irving M Copi and Carl Cohen Twelfth Edition "Introduction to Logic." And 4 Professors that Ive emailed about this that all say the same thing about Induction.

Will you please quote just the part where Copi and Cohen say what you claimed, i.e., "The ONLY difference between inductive and deductive logic is that inductive logic is an unsound argument."

[DavidOdden]

http://www.hcc.hawaii.edu/~pine/Book2/chap3EL.htm

This is a hawaiian college that provided this (it cited the university of indiana press, sorry for the confusion)

The proper citation for that book, given the author's self-representation of the book, is Ronald Pine (1989) Scence and the Human Prospect, Wadsworth Publishing Co: Belmont, CA. Pine is an instructor at Honolulu Community College, and the book is available online here, which you quoted from ch. 3. A quick look at the preface and the first part of the book indicates that he might be almost as confused as you, but not quite. This page is a counter to that source, which refutes his claim. So on a source-for-source basis, hs definition is neutralized.

Now what you should do is look through the book, and discover what is his basis for his statement about induction. In addition, you have represented inducting many ways and some of them are egregiously wrong. Pine's definition:

Arguments where the goal is to provide the best available evidence for the conclusion; the nature of the inferential claim is such that it is unlikely that the premises are true and the conclusion false.

is no worse than the usual anti-inductivist Bayesian twaddle. You will discover that there's a reason why he doesn't support his definition with any prior citations, e.g. from Aristotle, and that is because he made up this definition himeslf.

[stephen_speicher]

http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/~alex/teaching.../abduction5.pdf

this is the Arizona State University that has this in its website.

Okay, I read this little evolution of Peircean logic with abduction and I fail to see where they state, as you claimed, that "The ONLY difference between inductive and deductive logic is that inductive logic is an unsound argument." In fact, what they explicitly state is "For Pierce induction still has validity," and in their conclusion "In summary, abduction, deduction, and induction have different merits and shortcomings."

Do you just make things up?

p.s. Not that I buy into Peircean abduction. I am just relaying what is there.