Questions from this week and sample answer
Here are questions from the section on “The structure of inductive reasoning”
Q1. How is this section similar and different from previous sections?
Q2. What is reasoning? What might be the need to introduce this concept at this point?
Q3. What role logic plays for reasoning in general, and deductive reasoning in particular?
Q4. How is inductive reasoning different from deductive reasoning, when it comes to integrating the premises to form conclusion?
Q5. What is the problem of induction?
Q6. How does study for reaching “first level generalizations” contribute to the solution of “problem of induction”?
Q7. What leads can we get to the solution by studying Benjamin Franklin’s kite experiment and related facts?
Q8. Summarize similarity and difference between first level and higher level generalizations?
Q9. Elaborate on the conceptual framework that Franklin had to integrate when he did kite experiment?
Q10. What is the role of integration and logic in developing inductive generalizations?
Q11. What is the difference between premises of induction and deduction?
Q12. Why problem of induction has been elusive for so long?
Sample answer is as follows
Q7. What leads can we get to the solution by studying Benjamin Franklin’s kite experiment and related facts?
Ans: MY ANALYSIS
This part shows the process of induction for reaching higher generalizations. So far we have studied induction in detail only for first level generalizations.
FROM TLL
Let us examine a case typical of scientific induction, in which we do not directly perceive causal connections, and in which we are not restricted to a handful of first-level concepts. The example I have chosen is Benjamin Franklin’s famous kite experiment. It will serve to illustrate the pattern that we will see repeatedly in the next four chapters.
Franklin set out to prove that lightening is essentially electricity. Thunder clouds, he hypothesized, are electrically charged, and lightening is merely an electric discharge, when this charge runs off. Scientists do not always have their explanation of events worked out as a hypothesis in advance of their experiments, but sometimes they do, and Franklin did in this case. He setup his apparatus accordingly.
…If Franklin was right, the electrically charged thunder clouds should cause the key to become charged, and this charge will flow into and accumulate in the Leyden Jar. Of course, everything Franklin predicted turned out as he expected, and he concluded - from his experience of one thunderstorm - with a sweeping and necessary generalization describing the nature of lightening as such, here, everywhere and always. Why did this prove his generalization?
First, what did Franklin actually see during this experiment? What concretes did he observe that could also have been observed by a child or a savage? Among other things, he saw sparks flying from the key to the wire in the Leyden jar. He saw pieces of the wet kite string become rigid and repel each other. And he found that if he held the jar with one hand while touching his finger to wire entering it, he felt an unpleasant shock.
These concrete observations are essential[but not sufficient] to the experiment; you could learn nothing from it[experiment] without them[concrete observations]. Yet these observations would be meaningless to an ignorant person…
Besides his percepts, Franklin needed a series of sophisticated concepts; otherwise, he could neither have designed his experiment, nor interpreted its results…concepts as “electricity”, “discharge”, “conductor”, “Leyden Jar”… These concepts were made possible by and represent a wealth of earlier knowledge([some of]which was also discovered by means of experiments). Without this conceptual framework, Franklin could only have stared uncomprehendingly at sparks and shocks. Given such a framework, however, he can at once identify what he is seeing : The kite apparatus is a long conductor, and thus the electrically charged thundercloud causes the key to become charged, and then the key discharges into the insulated Leyden jar.
…The conceptual framework enables him to identify with the concrete measurements omitted, the essential causal chain; nothing else explains the observations.
If one grasps the observations in this case, and learns that the conceptual framework is valid, then the generalization follows necessarily.
MY FURTHER ANALYSIS
The most important inference for induction in this section is regarding higher level generalizations. First level generalizations require relevant first level concepts, and perception of causation in phenomena the generalization will refer to. Similarly higher level generalization requires higher level concepts, and like first level generalization referring to a perception depicting causal connection. That is, higher level generalization also refers to percept containing causal connection. Further, we also see, as in case of Galileo, the concepts, more specifically their characteristics contribute to the design of experiment. Further, for humanities subjects like history, while having experiment is not possible, as we saw in DIM, these characteristics can help select relevant subjects, existents, and enable their interpretations from various eras and fields(What is being integrated? How it is being integrated?)
Coming to Franklin’s experiment, here too we follow similar path as in “First Level Generalization”. While ultimately it established[connected units of] concept electricity, explicit scope of this experiment was to establish the generalization “clouds are electrically charged”. The behavior of lightening, or characteristics of concept lightening led to the formulation of hypothesis. More specifically, its heat, light and equivalent shock characteristics are similar to sparks that came around charged particles[This part is not written in the text, but we can infer this from later text]. And the experiment established other aspects of clouds, like it is charged since the string of kite got charged. This being established by spark near Leyden jar and repulsion among the strings.
These are the steps that I think would be involved here(all are not necessarily chronological, but some can be) :-
- Forming concepts of entities whose units exhibit electrical characteristics. Concepts like amber rod, spears etc. in this case.
- Forming concepts, probably as phrases initially, for characteristics that subsume properties of charged materials or conductors. Like attracting-repulsing, shock producing, spark producing, heat producing etc. Or transferring shock, spark etc.(I also assume concepts of actions like attraction, shock etc. are formed before).
- Forming causal connection between the characteristics in (2.), and entities in (1.), leading to higher level concepts like charge and charged materials.
- Subsuming new units to materials exhibiting characteristics identified in (2.), like key, wet string, and Leyden jar.
- Observing lightening and forming the concept that subsumes its various instances.
- Adding characteristics to lightening using “first level generalizations”. Like it produces shock, produces “heat and light” etc. These first level generalizations have concepts of attributes derived from (2.).
- Formulating experiment that can be used to connect entities involved in lightening and entities involved in charge. The formulation is because of hypothesis that lightening and “sparks of charged materials” are same, and hypothesis is reached because of few similarities like shock producing, heat producing, and light producing between the two.
- Doing and noting various observations in experimental setup.
- Comparing new observations in the setup to observations of relevant phenomenon in materials identified in (1.).
- If the actions are same, reaching the conclusion that concepts of attributes contributing to the actions are also same. And therefore concluding that entities involved in lightening have some attributes, that are same as that of charged materials. That is clouds are also electrically charged.
- Forming / Expanding concept electricity based on the generalizations derived from observations. Generalizations involving flow of charges, sparks being produced, shock, heat and light.
Some concepts in the above experiment will come under pre-science knowledge. Like lightening, clouds, kite, spark, heat, light, etc. Others like charge, Leyden jar, conductor will be discovered by science. Even if one of the concept, its characteristics, or the observation is invalid or false, the generalization will collapse. But we know from physics, each of this is true or valid. Valid meaning consistent, and true meaning as is perceived.