What is induction?

[stephen_speicher]

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

In an earlier post I gave you this by Aristotle, from Topics:"induction is a passage from individuals to universals."

[DavidOdden]

If you could cite philosophical text where induction is defined...

See An Introduction to Logic ch. 18, by H.W.B Joseph, which is a classic treatise on logic. The Oxford English Dictionary defines induction (in the logical sense) as "The process of inferring a general law or principle from the observation of particular instances". It derives from Latin inductio, Cicero's rendering of Greek epagoge.

[stephen_speicher]

What? This is what I am talking about.

Lighten up, nimble. It was a joke I made to Dave.

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.

I already let you know, nimble, in several previous posts. Bacon was a relative late-comer to the induction game. I gave you quotes from Aristotle (who, as far as I know, was the first to actually use the word "induction" as we translate it) and others.

[Thoyd Loki]

Quote nimble

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.

Here is my original answer from the day before yesterday. I don't know why this topic is going on in two sections, but this answer was sufficient yesterday. To which you replied, "we have different sources". Yes, we do, and yours is wrong. I have more to add below.

What book are you getting this from? Or are you making this up? This is a complete misunderstanding of logic on many points.

First, your concept of what an inductive argument is is simply wrong. And here I will quote a real dictionary "The process of inferring or verifying a general law or principle from the observation of particular instances;" (Oxford English Dictionary Fifth Edition)

"The Aristotilian term (Greek script) of which it is the  translation [induction], signified generally the process of establishing a general proposition not by deduction from a wider principle, but by appeal to the particular instances, or kinds of instances, in which its truth is shown." ( An Introduction to Logic, H.B.W Joseph page 378)

Induction is not screwed up deduction. They are different in form and in kind. There is also no formal structure of induction as you have rationalistically done in your example. Your example of an inductive argument is an example of a bad deductive argument.

It is invalid this way: Your argument goes, structually like this.

Some A is B

All C is A

All C is B

No argument like this is valid as you stated it. You would have to show (and the bubble diagrams they use in introduction courses are helpful to visualize this) that the class of C is both all in the class of A as well as all in the class of B. This form of argument cannot do this. Therefore even as a deductive argument, it is out.

Also looking up the etymology of the words induce and deduce (and the others) will give you a clearer picture of the differing nature of these to forms of logic.

Bacon did not "invent" induction. Aristotle was the discoverer, but all they had was induction by simple enumeration. I believe it was Bacon who started the modern conception of scientific induction. But, my Bacon is a little sketchy.

"Investigation [induction] proceeds from the particular given in perception, and from the ideas current in customary opinion, to find the general, from which the particualr can then be proved and explained. Investigation, therefore, follows a direction the reverse of that taken by deduction; the latter is deductive, the former inductive, epagogic. The latter proceeds, proving and expaining, from general to particular; the former, searching and testing, from particular to general." A History of Philosophy Part1 chapter 3:12 page 137 The Aristotilian Logic Wilhelm Windelband 1891

[Thoyd Loki]

nimble,

I'm also going to give you a quote from the master himself that Stephen Speicher referenced for you in case you can't find it.

" Having drawn these definitions, we must distinguish how many species there are of dialectical arguments. There is on the one hand Induction, on the other Reasoning. Now what reasoning is has been said before: induction is a passage from individuals to universals, e.g. the argument that supposing the skilled pilot is the most effective, and likewise the skilled charioteer, then in general the skilled man is the best at his particular task. Induction is the more convincing and clear: it is more readily learnt by the use of the senses, and is applicable generally to the mass of men, though Reasoning is more forcible and effective against contradictious people."

Aristotle Organon Topica Bk 1 Ch 12 /The Basic Works of Aristotle Richard McKeon

And don't flub over my original post, I think I quite succinctly and thoroughly took care of the issue the first time.

[BurgessLau]

" Having drawn these definitions, we must distinguish how many species there are of dialectical arguments. There is on the one hand Induction, on the other Reasoning. Now what reasoning is has been said before: induction is a passage from individuals to universals, e.g. the argument that supposing the skilled pilot is the most effective, and likewise the skilled charioteer, then in general the skilled man is the best at his particular task. Induction is the more convincing and clear: it is more readily learnt by the use of the senses, and is applicable generally to the mass of men, though Reasoning is more forcible and effective against contradictious people."

Aristotle Organon Topica Bk 1 Ch 12 /The Basic Works of Aristotle Richard McKeon

The Greek word for "induction" in this passage is epagoge. The Greek word for "reasoning" here is sullogismos -- that is, syllogizing, which I suspect, from the text's immediate context, refers to deductive argumentation.

In the context of Objectivism, the term "reason" names an idea that refers to a whole faculty, one that includes both induction and deduction.

So, I would suggest that the translation above could be confusing to anyone new to Objectivism. It seems to pit induction against reason -- and that ain't so, in Objectivism.

[stephen_speicher]

Here is my original answer from the day before yesterday....

Had I known you had already provided all of this I probably never would have replied at all.

But, just one comment:

Aristotle was the discoverer, but all they had was induction by simple enumeration.

According to Randall (John Herman Randall, Jr., Aristotle, pp. 42-44, Columbia University Press, 1960) Aristotle used induction (epagoge) to stand for "complete enumeration" as you state, but also for the process of learning first principles (archai) by generalizing to this universal based on "observation of facts, of particular instances." So Aristotle can truly be said to be the first to have used the concept "induction" as scientific generalization.

[Thoyd Loki]

The Greek word for "induction" in this passage is epagoge. The Greek word for "reasoning" here is sullogismos -- that is, syllogizing, which I suspect, from the text's immediate context, refers to deductive argumentation.

In the context of Objectivism, the term "reason" names an idea that refers to a whole faculty, one that includes both induction and deduction.

So, I would suggest that the translation above could be confusing to anyone new to Objectivism. It seems to pit induction against reason -- and that ain't so, in Objectivism.

Yes, that could be confusing for the inexperienced, I can just hope they read your post. I do not know why the author chose to stick to such a strict translation when deduction would be more clear.

[Thoyd Loki]

But, just one comment:

According to Randall (John Herman Randall, Jr., Aristotle, pp. 42-44, Columbia University Press, 1960) Aristotle used induction (epagoge) to stand for "complete enumeration" as you state, but also for the process of learning first principles (archai) by generalizing to this universal based on "observation of facts, of particular instances." So Aristotle can truly be said to be the first to have used the concept "induction" as scientific generalization.

Excellent, you are absolutely right! And I always love it when Aristotle wins.