Curi, I’d be interested in a reply to my second paragraph because it’s really hard to tell what your point is. What does induction supposedly achieve? What do inductivists (as you call them) claim can be done but actually cannot? It’s fine to say how some people reason badly, but what about induction in principle is wrong? 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.
Also you seem to have a premise (it’s a bit unclear, you didn’t try very hard to explain) that infants learn without thinking.
Yes.
No newborn infant in the entire world has a grasp of abstract ideas, or of perceptions [three-dimensional objects with integrated image, texture, sounds, etc.] and they learn these by observation and reflexive attention; the same way you reflexively concentrate on any object which approaches you rapidly.
If infants were born with innate ideas already present then they would simply emerge from the womb, stand up and start looking for a job. The fact that there is a developmental stage at all refutes any variation of such.
I only presupposed induction on the premise that induction is how we think, generalize, or anything else. But I rejected that premise. There are other ways to accomplish everything induction supposedly could achieve.
Then explain your alternative.
Because sofar you’ve provided a diverse and robust assortment of “somehow” and “not induction”. (Note that this observation is, itself, an act of induction) “There are other ways” is a generalization from specifics (your conceived alternative) and as such is induction.
How do you know that the dog says “woof”?
ok Eiuol.
Curi, I’d be interested in a reply to my second paragraph because it’s really hard to tell what your point is. What does induction supposedly achieve?
Knowledge.
What do inductivists (as you call them) claim can be done but actually cannot?
They have a large number of claims and I brought up a bunch in my essay.
if you have a claim i didn’t address, feel free to bring it up.
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.
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.
btw the dictionary gives, “inference of a generalized conclusion from particular instances” which is basically good enough, close enough. this idea is wrong. and this idea is not any “process of developing a premise and acquiring new knoweldge” nor is it “creativity”. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/induction
What would help if you point out a specific epistemological mistake(s) the inductivists (as you call them) are making. That way, I don’t need to concern myself about all the various theories of induction, and focus instead on a specific error. Sort of like how Rand pointed out specific errors she noticed about stances people take on the “problem” of universals.
I pointed out a number of specific errors in the essay so I don’t really get the question. But maybe I’ve now answered it above.
I’m not really even sure what expectation people have of induction that you find either a) unnecessary or b ) impossible to achieve. Be specific, because I really don’t know. All I can say is “yeah, a lot of people are wrong. So?” If induction is wrong because it’s seeking a holy grail of knowledge that doesn’t exist, then induction is doomed to fail in the long run. You have a decent list of issues (at first), but no clear explanation of who an inductivist except “one who claims they like induction”.
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 correlation (or patterns) hints at causation
-
you think correlation points in the direction of good ideas
-
you think there’s only one or a couple possible ideas compatible with any given data set
-
you think data leads us to good theories
-
you think we “learn from experience” in some kind of direct or concrete way, as an actual philosophical idea
-
you think observations come before ideas in an epistemological hierarchy
-
you think bayesian stuff is important to epistemology
-
you’ve read inductivist philosophers, know what they say, and think they’re right
-
you’ve read inductivist philosophers and some criticism (like hume’s or russell’s) and think induction apparently not working is a huge problem for epistemology (David Deutsch calls this being a crypto-inductivist. it’s a lot like being an inductivist. see his book The Fabric of Reality)
-
you think observing the same thing a large number of times is valuable
-
you think criticisms of your positions can be ignored if you have enough support for your position so the criticism could only weaken your support but not refute it (it’d take 5 criticisms to refute you, or something)
-
you think we “generalize” or data/observations to create or “induce” general theories
-
you hate Popper
-
you think that you should open/empty your mind as much as possible and observe without bias and that’s key to learning
-
you say stuff like “the sun rose the last 10 days so it’ll rise tomorrow” (and get mad if anyone doubts that)
-
you think a denial of induction implies skepticism
-
you think evidence supports ideas, and the more evidence the greater the degree of support (yes i’m aware everyone thinks this. yet it’s wrong. in short: evidence contradicts and rules out ideas. it does not differentiate between the ideas that it doesn’t contradict or rule out. it doesn’t provide degrees of support.)
Here’s another version I wrote in 2010:
In short, induction is about ideas like: correlations or patterns in data hint at causations, ideas can/should be based on evidence, the future resembles the past, we should begin science by gathering data, we learn (directly) from experience, and large data sets are reliable. Induction says we generalize a bunch of particulars into universal statements, but this generalization process is an impossibility and a myth, and it says we support or confirm theories with more evidence. There are more exact/specific versions, e.g. Bacon’s, and a Bayesian variety, but inductivists vary quite a bit in their beliefs so it’s best explained as a bunch of similar/related ideas.
Harrison Danneskjold,
“Then explain your alternative.”
“How do you know that the dog says “woof”?”
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).
If you want further explanation then I suggest either:
- read what i or others already wrote that isn’t on this website
or
- ask some specific question i might be interested in answering. stuff along the lines of “explain epistemology to me.” is not very motivating for me, especially without any reason given for choosing not to study the literature (mine or others)
or
- wait. i’m writing more essays. i can’t say everything at once.
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.
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.
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
thanks for being honest this time, as opposed to the previous dishonesty.
Care to elaborate?
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
1 Like
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.