Induction and logic.

Topher
Topher's picture
Posts: 513
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Induction and logic.

Induction and logic.

Someone recently tried to argue that Hume showed induction is not logical at all.

Here was there 'review' of todangst essay on this topic:

wrote:
That article offers no logical grounds for induction. The problem of induction does not say that "we can't be completely sure about what's going to happen, therefore we don't have any idea at all". It says we cannot even make probabilistic predictions based on induction. I am not committing your fallacy of arguing from inductive uncertainty, because I am not simply equating all probabilities. I am saying there there aren't even any probabilities.


My understanding of it from reading todangst's essay on the 'problem' of induction is that induction rests on deduction via probability? To say there is no logical basis for induction is bizarre.

"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
Topher wrote:Induction and

Topher wrote:

My understanding of it from reading todangst's essay on the 'problem' of induction is that induction rests on deduction via probability? To say there is no logical basis for induction is bizarre.

Glad you concede that. So, how do YOU justify trusting it?

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


Girl Dancing In...
Girl Dancing In Orbit's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist

Presuppositionalist wrote:
Glad you concede that. So, how do YOU justify trusting it?

 

First off : Why do you Jesus freaks love the CAPS LOCK KEY SO MUCH ? It's not impressing anyone.

Secondly : What are you talking about ?

Si Dieu existe, c'est Son problème !
If God exists, it's His problem !--Graffiti on the walls of the Sorbonne (France), May 1968
romancedlife.blogspot.com


thingy
SuperfanGold Member
thingy's picture
Posts: 1022
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Girl Dancing In Orbit

Girl Dancing In Orbit wrote:

First off : Why do you Jesus freaks love the CAPS LOCK KEY SO MUCH ? It's not impressing anyone.

Secondly : What are you talking about ?

Nothing worth worrying about.  Just look at his name, that's the term given to people who use bad assumptions and build a worse phylosophical argument from there.  That's all any of his posts are, not a single one has been worth the time it took to read it so far. 

Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
I've never been 100% exactly

I've never been 100% exactly what the problem actually is.
I should probably read up on the Standford article or something.


drummermonkey
Theist
Posts: 54
Joined: 2006-12-17
User is offlineOffline
I've always thought of the

I've always thought of the "problem of induction" as not necessarily  a problem of inductive logic counting as "logical", whatever that means; although there is some large problems within inductive logic itself, that is to say which model is right. Rather, I think of it as more of an epistemelogical problem. Can we really say that knowledge is fallible? If we can rely on high probabilities to get knowledge, then there are a lot of epistemic puzzles that rise up. Two that are most famous now in contemporary epistemology is the problem of "Grue" and the lottery problem. Both of which are beyond the scope of this forum but here's a taste of the arguments.

First the lottery problem:

Suppose I have a large pile of lottery tickets infront of me, and I draw a single lottery ticket from that pile. Now, the probabilities are so low that the lottery ticket I have  drawn will win that I know the lottery ticket is a loser. Next I draw another lottery ticket from the same pile. I know that ticket number 2 will be a loser. I keep going, drawing tickets and knowing that each is a loser until i reach the last ticket. Now there are two options that I have, either the lottery ticket is a winner, or a loser. Deductively, If all the previouse tickets are losers, then this last ticket is the winner. This is odd. But Inductively, all the lottery tickets have the same probabilities thus I know that each ticket I draw including the last one, is a loser. This is just as odd, since there must be a winner. The other option is that I don't know which ticket will win and thus I also don't know which ticket will lose, after all it's possible that I may win. So, it is argued, I must not know the same sort of propositions as the lottery tickets: propositions that are based on probabilities. So, I don't know that I'm not going to have a heart attack, since it's possible that I might have one. I don't know that I'm going to be in school tommorrow, because I may win the lottery and quite school, or I might suffer an unexpected heart attack etc. And it follows I don't know very much at all.

The problem of Grue:

O = x is observed before today.
     F = x is observed after today.
     G= x is green.
     B= x is blue.

So grue is stated as follows:
(O&G) v (F&B).

In other words define grue as follows:

x is grue iff either (x is observed before today and x is green) or (x is observed after today and x is blue).


The skeptical argument is as follows:
1' )Your observations equally support the theory that all emeralds are green & all emeralds are grue.
2' )If (1) then the observation we've made provide no better support for the claim that the next emerald we see will be green than that it will be blue.
3' ) So, Obserations don't support (F&G) > (F&B).
4' ) If 3, then observations don't justify the claim that the next emerald will be green.
5' ) So, observations don't justify that the next emerald will be green.

Both skeptical arguments seek to question whether we can really rely on high probabilities for knowledge claims. Although most contemporary epistemologists seem to think that we can, none have really given a satisfactory reply to either the lottery problem or the problem of grue thus it is still a live debate within philosophy, and thus also the subject of inductive logic.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3703
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Girl Dancing In Orbit

Girl Dancing In Orbit wrote:


First off : Why do you Jesus freaks love the CAPS LOCK KEY SO MUCH ?

Answer:

BECAUSE WHAT CHRISTIANS HAVE TO SAY IS SO IMPORTANT AND AWE INSPIRING THAT IT COULD NEVER BE APPROPRIATELY EXPRESSED IN LOWER CASE !!!!!!!

( ...plus, the use of multiple exclamation points at the end of sentences ensure that you will pay attention. )

www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/misanthropy

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." Rudyard Kipling


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist

Presuppositionalist wrote:

Topher wrote:

My understanding of it from reading todangst's essay on the 'problem' of induction is that induction rests on deduction via probability? To say there is no logical basis for induction is bizarre.

Glad you concede that.

You need to concede to having a reading comprehension problem. He just said that that to say that there is no logical basis of induction is bizarre.

 

Quote:

So, how do YOU justify trusting it?

He just cited the way.  Of course, there is also pragmatism.

 

By the way, there's a difference between  uncertainty and utter epistemic chaos. Presuppers confuse the two.

 

Actually, presuppers confuse a lot of things.... mainly because they don't know what they are talking about.


 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.