curi Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 Popper came up with many refutations of induction. That made it hard to come up with a new one. But I managed it: Deutsch, Popper, and Feynman aren't inductivists. I could add more people to this list, like me. So here we see a clear pattern of people not being inductivists. There's a bunch of data points with a certain thing in common (a person not being inductivist). Let's apply induction to this pattern. So we extrapolate the general trend: induction leads us to conclude against induction. Oh no, a contradiction! I guess we'll have to throw out induction. Q&A: Q: Your data set is incomplete. A: All data sets are incomplete. Q: Your data set isn't random. A: No data sets are entirely random. Q: I have an explanation of why your method of selecting data points leads to a misleading result. A: That's nice. I like explanations. Q: Don't you care that I have a criticism of your argument? A: I said we should throw out induction. As you may know, I think we should use an explanation-focussed approach. I took your claim to have an explanation, and lack of claim to have induced anything, as agreement. Q: But how am I supposed to object to your argument using only induction? Induction isn't a tool for criticizing invalid uses of induction. A: So you're saying induction cannot tell us which inductions are true or false. We need explanation to do that. So induction is useless without explanation, but explanation is not useless without induction. Q: That doesn't prove induction is useless. A: Have you ever thought about how much of the work, in a supposed induction, is done by induction, and how much by explanation? Q: No. A: Try it sometime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eiuol Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 (edited) Your notion of inductivist is still vague to me then you keep making a new thread. Also I'm not sure why you keep posting it here to the degree that you say nothing at all to do with Objectivism, or talking about a particular stance of Objectivism (you said yourself induction is barely mentioned in ITOE and even OPAR), just a general "induction is wrong". And your critique to me is apparently based off the very thing you're speaking out against, which is using a set of data points to make a generalization. I sorta know what you mean by inductivist, but not really. All you did for me is write a list as though it were a DSM diagnosis. I propose not using the word induction, because this is not an argument of how to write a dictionary. If induction is only what you say it is here, fine, you're right. My preference is to not say "induction" and talk about formation of concepts objectively. I only use the word sometimes because it's better than the alternative words. I thought of a good response actually that is not dependent on data sets or probability in order to make a final stage for a true conclusion that's more like induction than not. I was going to write it in your other thread, then you posted this. And if my explanation ends up being what you call not induction at all, that's fine, but it will be about how to reach true generalizations of specific concretes (not approximations). If you just have a little patience, you'll get at least an alternative besides the arguments you have been asking for. Edited July 12, 2013 by Eiuol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curi Posted July 12, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 Why would you not post in the prior thread just because this thread exists too? I don't get it. Why are you accusing me of lack of patience? I didn't demand faster replies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrison Danneskjold Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 So we extrapolate the general trend: induction leads us to conclude against induction. Oh no, a contradiction! I guess we'll have to throw out induction. Grand conceptual larceny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curi Posted July 13, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 It's a reductio... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eiuol Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 Why would you not post in the prior thread just because this thread exists too? I don't get it. Why are you accusing me of lack of patience? I didn't demand faster replies. Oh I will get to the other one, you just seem to expect a lot at once, and it's hard to say what your objective is when you aren't saying much about Objectivist epistemology in either how it helps or what you think is wrong. Perhaps it's just your writing style. I say lack of patience because you seem to be dissatisfied you are only getting criticisms that lack alternatives just yet. Which ironically enough is what I criticize (from what I know of) Popper for doing. To me, my only objective in these discussions is how to get at good ways of creating concepts to investigate and learn about. Mostly, I just find some of your arguments weak for dismantling a concept (just as your OP here presents weak arguments for accepting a concept). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curi Posted July 13, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 Objectivist epistemology says induction is right. All my stuff about induction is commenting on Objectivist epistemology. I also criticized the weighing evidence idea. I've also talked about some stuff like certainty and fallibility. This is all Objectivism related. I consider forums to have asynchronous communication. That means I post on my schedule, and you post on your schedule. I don't expect anything else. Popper is not only criticism of rival views; he presents a view of how epistemology works. He has many books about this. Why does it seem that no Objectivist has ever read and understood them? I don't have a problem with you or any other one person not studying it. But someone should have. And I think if no Objectivist has answered it well, then Objectivists shouldn't be so harsh on Popper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eiuol Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 (edited) Objectivist epistemology says induction is right. To a degree yeah, but you have said nothing about Objectivist epistemology. So whatever Objectivism says you haven't addressed anyway (you said you think measurement omission claims to much, but that's about it). You addressed arguments that aren't compatible with Objectivism anyway, hence why I think you give mostly straw-mans even if what you say is true, so your conclusions eventually just don't follow. Edited July 13, 2013 by Eiuol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrison Danneskjold Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 It's a reductio... . . . Ad absurdium? For the record, I consider that to be a valid form of reasoning so long as you take all relevant principles into account. But that's not what your OP is. Deutsch, Popper, and Feynman aren't inductivists. I could add more people to this list, like me. So here we see a clear pattern of people not being inductivists. There's a bunch of data points with a certain thing in common (a person not being inductivist). Let's apply induction to this pattern. So we extrapolate the general trend: induction leads us to conclude against induction. Oh no, a contradiction! I guess we'll have to throw out induction. You are saying: P: Some people do not use induction p: Induction is unjustified C: Induction is neither necessary nor good; corollary being that it must be discarded. There's no way to gather a general contradiction from the pattern you implied, through induction; the only valid conclusion to draw would be that some people don't need it (which is false, stemming from your unsubstantiated claim that you don't use it). You do, in fact, need it. However, if we take your openly-stated premises and extrapolate from them: P: Apparent patterns do not imply real patterns [in the physical world] p: Past experience tells us nothing about the future C: Knowledge cannot be known to man What you fail to realize is that, if this applies to the rising of the sun tomorrow, it applies equally to everything else in the entire world; from your internal organs to the minds of every other illusory-person in your world to whether or not the dog says "woof". The act of speaking at all blatantly contradicts this; how do you know that anyone can hear or read you? How do you know that anyone else exists? Do you think that's air you're breathing? The only course of action fully consistent with such a notion is to make no assumptions, provide no arguments, lay down and await the inevitable. If there is an error in my reasoning then please point it out. If not then I invite you to check your premises (or make no assumptions!). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikee Posted October 7, 2013 Report Share Posted October 7, 2013 (edited) Your notion of inductivist is still vague to me then you keep making a new thread. Also I'm not sure why you keep posting it here to the degree that you say nothing at all to do with Objectivism, or talking about a particular stance of Objectivism (you said yourself induction is barely mentioned in ITOE and even OPAR), just a general "induction is wrong". And your critique to me is apparently based off the very thing you're speaking out against, which is using a set of data points to make a generalization. I sorta know what you mean by inductivist, but not really. All you did for me is write a list as though it were a DSM diagnosis. I propose not using the word induction, because this is not an argument of how to write a dictionary. If induction is only what you say it is here, fine, you're right. My preference is to not say "induction" and talk about formation of concepts objectively. I only use the word sometimes because it's better than the alternative words. I thought of a good response actually that is not dependent on data sets or probability in order to make a final stage for a true conclusion that's more like induction than not. I was going to write it in your other thread, then you posted this. And if my explanation ends up being what you call not induction at all, that's fine, but it will be about how to reach true generalizations of specific concretes (not approximations). If you just have a little patience, you'll get at least an alternative besides the arguments you have been asking for. Louie, could you post that explanantion? Edited October 7, 2013 by Mikee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrictlyLogical Posted October 7, 2013 Report Share Posted October 7, 2013 Popper came up with many refutations of induction. That made it hard to come up with a new one. But I managed it: Deutsch, Popper, and Feynman aren't inductivists. I could add more people to this list, like me. So here we see a clear pattern of people not being inductivists. There's a bunch of data points with a certain thing in common (a person not being inductivist). Let's apply induction to this pattern. So we extrapolate the general trend: induction leads us to conclude against induction. Oh no, a contradiction! I guess we'll have to throw out induction. Q&A: Q: Your data set is incomplete. A: All data sets are incomplete. Q: Your data set isn't random. A: No data sets are entirely random. Q: I have an explanation of why your method of selecting data points leads to a misleading result. A: That's nice. I like explanations. Q: Don't you care that I have a criticism of your argument? A: I said we should throw out induction. As you may know, I think we should use an explanation-focussed approach. I took your claim to have an explanation, and lack of claim to have induced anything, as agreement. Q: But how am I supposed to object to your argument using only induction? Induction isn't a tool for criticizing invalid uses of induction. A: So you're saying induction cannot tell us which inductions are true or false. We need explanation to do that. So induction is useless without explanation, but explanation is not useless without induction. Q: That doesn't prove induction is useless. A: Have you ever thought about how much of the work, in a supposed induction, is done by induction, and how much by explanation? Q: No. A: Try it sometime. Is it just me or is this exchange of Q and A completely incoherent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikee Posted October 8, 2013 Report Share Posted October 8, 2013 Explanations is such a broad term. Feyman did book-keeping.mayne thats what he is referring to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A is A Posted October 8, 2013 Report Share Posted October 8, 2013 Is it just me or is this exchange of Q and A completely incoherent? No, it's not just you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrison Danneskjold Posted October 8, 2013 Report Share Posted October 8, 2013 SL: I don't think it's just you. I understood it eventually, but only after multiple rereads and great effort. And it still isn't coherent. I get it now but if you stop to dissect it it's not really an argument at all. It's more like a rambling fantasy which was meant to make a certain point but got lost along the way and eventually gave up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.