Induction is Wrong. A lot

[Harrison Danneskjold]

 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.

 You didn't and you only provided a single link, which can't be read without paying a fee.  I have provided you with my theory of induction which you have yet to seriously address, as well as a step-by-step explanation which you've flatly refused to acknowledge.

 

One of the problems with induction is there is no such step by step method to do it.

 This is a lie.

 

 

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.

ITOE says nothing about induction?  Either a lie, or a lie that you've even read it.

 

And, by the way, it sounds like Eiuol is trying to be courteous to you and understand your confusion.  I no longer am.

 

 

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 observations come before ideas in an epistemological hierarchy

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

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

- you hate Popper

 And now we start to see the "problem" with induction, right before our eyes.

 

You don't want to understand because you hate the good for being good; specifically self-confidence and certainty in one's own knowledge, which you cannot find "authority" in because there is no one to hold your hand through it.

Which is why Popper appeals to you; he essentially declared that nobody can ever know anything.  (this is a generalization based on this thread)

 

 

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).

 How many times have I asked you to explain your process to me?

 

You don't have a process, nor do you want one.  You only want to tear down other peoples' sense of certainty.

Like children building sand-castles, you don't actually want one; you only want to stomp on everyone else's.  This would explain your rabid hatred of induction and your total indifference towards explaining any alternative.

 

 

 

And this post is an excellent example of generalizing from specifics.

[curi]

thanks for being honest this time, as opposed to the previous dishonesty. now i know where you stand clearly. let's not talk with each other anymore.

[Mikee]

I have yet to see a reason why Popper's logical negativism should be taken seriously and Curi hasn't explained what Popper's theory of concepts is. A lot of talk and vagueness

Edited July 12, 2013 by Mikee

[Harrison Danneskjold]

thanks for being honest this time, as opposed to the previous dishonesty.

 

Care to elaborate?

[StrictlyLogical]

IF induction IS

 

"inference of a generalized conclusion from particular instances"

 

and if the totality of any individual person's life is a collection of particular instances of experiencing reality, then is not claiming "induction is wrong" tantamount to claiming "knowledge" is impossible to every individual?  Is it not an attack on the process of conceptualization itself?

 

 

I think I hear echoes of skepticism and rationalism...

 

 

Assuming omniscience, mystic revelation and platonic forms do not exist (and they do not), perhaps the issue of "knowledge" is one of semantics.  An Objectivist knows that whatever "knowledge" IS, it must at least fall within the scope of WHAT an individual can HAVE in his or her brain and can gain from experiencing reality (there are many other steps of course)

 

It would be utterly senseless to speak of a kind of "knowledge" not possible to man.. such a definition takes the concept outside of the range of what it is meant to identify.

 

SL 

[Eiuol]

I actually realized that Curi is arguing against associationism, which is basically the idea that learning only comes from repeated experiences. That's wrong, to be sure, and isn't at all the position Objectivism takes on induction. So to it doesn't follow that induction is wrong a lot, just a particular form is wrong a lot.