The Humean Problem of Induction

[Cthulhu]

But how do we know the alternative is chaos, terror, and anguish? And how do we know that adopting it will lead us to happiness? It seemed to happen that way in the past, but that really says nothing about what will happen in the future. You can't draw this conclusion without presupposing it first. In other words, you are merely restating it. There is no argument here. It's actually a type of an appeal to emotion. A claim. You want to believe this.

If you say that it will lead to happiness, you are already presupposing that it's a good method of reasoning, in order to come to this claim. Why is it a good method of reasoning, though? Or, rather, how do we know that it is? You are essentially saying, it is a good method of reasoning, it is a good method of reasoning. That's not justification.

Let me ask you another question. You clearly think induction is a good method of reasoning. Do you think this is the case all of the time? See the questions that start to arise?

I've tried to give sensible arguments that I'm sure made sense to you, and I'm positive that you yourself will use induction the rest of your life... But you seem to want a purer, more logical argument.

If you want to take it this far... fine, here's where it gets interesting. How do YOU know what induction is? Maybe you knew in the past, but how can you be sure that the word "induction" still refers to the same thing? How do you know that any of the words you're saying mean what you think they mean? You originally learned them through induction, whereby a specific word gradually generalized into a concept... but how do you know that still holds? How do you know that the words you type, aimed at a receiver/debater (me) will actually make their way to my computer screen? When you say that we cannot presume that induction will work in the future, what do you mean by "future?" Sure the concept of future made sense in the past because induction seemed pretty reliable, but what about now? Since we cannot reason that induction will work now or tomorrow, none of your words, or your argument, have any validity to them because they themselves came about through induction.

Do you see? By questioning induction, you automatically use and presume induction, thereby contradicting your own argument and nullifying your questioning.

Interested to see your response to this

 

[freejroll]

I've tried to give sensible arguments that I'm sure made sense to you, and I'm positive that you yourself will use induction the rest of your life... But you seem to want a purer, more logical argument.

No, I only asked why you think induction is a good method of reasoning. You responded every time by stating that you think induction is a good method of reasoning. You have never answered the why.

If you want to take it this far... fine, here's where it gets interesting. How do YOU know what induction is? Maybe you knew in the past, but how can you be sure that the word "induction" still refers to the same thing? How do you know that any of the words you're saying mean what you think they mean? You originally learned them through induction, whereby a specific word gradually generalized into a concept... but how do you know that still holds? How do you know that the words you type, aimed at a receiver/debater (me) will actually make their way to my computer screen? When you say that we cannot presume that induction will work in the future, what do you mean by "future?" Sure the concept of future made sense in the past because induction seemed pretty reliable, but what about now? Since we cannot reason that induction will work now or tomorrow, none of your words, or your argument, have any validity to them because they themselves came about through induction.

Do you see? By questioning induction, you automatically use and presume induction, thereby contradicting your own argument and nullifying your questioning.

Ahh, but I might have a worldview which makes an account for induction. In fact, many people have worldviews which make accounts for induction. Whether or not they work is a different story. I was only asking for the readers.

 

[Cthulhu]

No, I only asked why you think induction is a good method of reasoning. You responded every time by stating that you think induction is a good method of reasoning. You have never answered the why.

Sure I did, but you insist on reducing it. I said it is inevitable and healthy.

Ahh, but I might have a worldview which makes an account for induction. In fact, many people have worldviews which make accounts for induction. Whether or not they work is a different story. I was only asking for the readers.

I'm not sure you understand my counterargument. You have tried to show the fallacy of using induction. I am saying, that to show that induction is invalid (at least via your argument), you have to assume it is valid. This is obviously a logical contradiction and makes your argument nonsensical.

 

[The_Idler]

.....

etc. I'm not trying to be a jerk about quoting every single part of your posts. It's just that I want to show you that your views contradict itself. It's hard to claim that we know nothing, etc, and then to be true to those beliefs. It's especially hard when you are trying to portray these beliefs to other people.

Perhaps the sole assumption necessary is that the universe,
which i am experiencing,
will continue to obey the same rules of chance,
as it has, throughout the history of my consciousness,
which i can recall probably experiencing.

On this sole assumption,
probability can be determined for any particular situation being the case,
within the universe i imagine to probably inhabit,
based upon subjective experiences,
which relate to said situation.

Tis not necessary to use inductive assumption,
beyond the first point I made,
as far as I can now see.
from the subjective experiences of the universe,
we can determine the probable cause of the celestial systems,
allowing us to conclude that,
without any interference,
they will continue, unchanged.

This is based upon the LOGIC of cause>effect,
which can be understood, without a universe or any uncertainty.

The most elegant methods of interpreting the subjective experience,
use as much logic, and as little subjective experience, as possible.

To say
"Time will continue to flow,
because it always has"
is faith.

To say
"As far as my subjective experience will allow me to assess,
time will probably continue to flow,
because, according to my previous subjective experiences,
it probably has been doing so,
and it is not probable that any event will occur,
to stop it."
is logic (well, better logic =P still i must rely somewhat on subjective experience,
but logically)

from this logical progression,
I can come to logically conclude the most logically probable explanation of a situation.
Omniscience is not assumed,
in fact, the probable lack of it is factored in to the probability calculation.
Of course, my calculation may be wrong,
but the only information I have is based upon my limited experience.

So, I act as if time will continue to flow,
because, for all i have been able to observe,
it logically, probably will.

I may be wrong, but that doesn't mean it would have been smarter to assume,
without any logic, or experience, that it IS just GOING to stop.

It would be less logical to,
instead of basing a determination of probability upon some subjective experience,
base it upon a random and improbable assumption.
Like "if I die, I will be judged, and may live my life in heaven for eternity."
There is no logic there whatsoever, and ALSO no subjective experience.

I can use the idea of a simpler explanation having greater probability,
to determine the fact that my memories are PROBABLY of the same subjective reality,
which I am currently experiencing.
(as opposed to written in by the Matrix, or whatever.)

the same idea applies to the probabilistic arguments against the existence of the supernatural, including God.

I do not have to assume omnipotence,
to be able to draw logical conclusions,
from subjective experience.

I do not have to assume that my experience is "real" (beyond my consciousness),
because my actions obey the logic of cause>effect within it,
therefore, interacting with it is not a problem.




"But you seem to want a purer, more logical argument."

talk about Hume's ideas.
Logic is better than experience, experience is better than faith.
it is easier to make conclusions from the progressively worse frameworks,
because they are more simple and clunky.

So, the best cognitive methodology of decision-making,
would be based upon pure logic.

progressively less accurate forms of determination of probable situations,
begin to arise, as one moves down the scale of elegance in explanation.

The reason induction is used regularly,
is that it is sufficiently simpler than pure logic,
to allow quick assessment,
yet not so significantly more inaccurate,
that it ceases to be worthwhile.


The things, which you have most time to think about;
your life; God; the Universe;
should be interpreted with as much logic as possible.
This is what makes religion so tiny-minded.

 

[freejroll]

Sure I did, but you insist on reducing it. I said it is inevitable and healthy.

You still don't understand my argument. It's my fault. I'm probably not making it clear enough. Well, I know that I'm not, judging from everyone else's comments in the thread.

You did not. I asked why do you think induction is a good method of reasoning. You keep saying "because induction is healthy" or "because induction is our only option" or "because induction works." The quotes aren't meant to be your exact words, they are quoted as a reply to a question in a sentence.

Saying any of these things is not really answering the why, which is what I am asking. All of these things presupposes induction is a good method of reasoning. It's only healthy or a good or better option if it works, or it will work in the future. So saying any of these things is like saying induction is a good method of reasoning because induction is a good method of reasoning.

So essentially when I asked why induction was a good method of reasoning, you answered why deduction was a good method of reasoning.

I'm not sure you understand my counterargument. You have tried to show the fallacy of using induction. I am saying, that to show that induction is invalid (at least via your argument), you have to assume it is valid. This is obviously a logical contradiction and makes your argument nonsensical.

I have not tried to show the fallacy in using induction. I understand your argument. You don't understand mine I am not saying that we shouldn't use induction. I'm not saying that induction is a bad method of reasoning. I'm saying that you haven't justified using it.

 

[Cthulhu]

^I understand your argument completely, because I have had the exact same thoughts. My initial argument was more common sense, that it is inevitable - and this does not "presuppose induction is a good method of reasoning" - it just says that it is what it is. But forget that, I came up with a more logical argument that should appeal to you and you haven't replied to it.

You say that induction isn't a bad method of reasoning, but you also say that it doesn't work or that we have no reason to use it because we can't justify it - this is basically saying it's bad, or at least no better than any other method of reasoning, because it is groundless. Now I am saying that to make your argument, you are assuming the validity of induction in the very words you type. The assumption of induction's validity is implicit in your very questioning of
induction's validity. And you are questioning induction right? Where am I missing your argument, I'm pretty sure I know what you're saying.

So, you are questioning your questioning, which is at best a loop and at worst an argument that collapses on itself. It's like flying a rocket ship to Mars to retrieve evidence that we cannot fly to Mars.

 

[freejroll]

^I understand your argument completely, because I have had the exact same thoughts. My initial argument was more common sense, that it is inevitable - and this does not "presuppose induction is a good method of reasoning" - it just says that it is what it is. But forget that, I came up with a more logical argument that should appeal to you and you haven't replied to it.

I don't think you are understanding what I am saying. You keep attributing positions to me which I don't adhere to.

And I showed how your arguments didn't work. If you don't believe it, you probably don't understand them. Which is my fault, not yours, for not doing a better job explaining it. Seriously, I'm not questioning your intelligence. I really believe I did a bad job explaining it, judging by everyone's responses.

You say that induction isn't a bad method of reasoning, but you also say that it doesn't work or that we have no reason to use it because we can't justify it - this is basically saying it's bad, or at least no better than any other method of reasoning, because it is groundless.

I never said induction is not a bad method of reasoning! I never said that it doesn't work! I never said that we can't justify using it! I never said that it was bad! I never said that it was no better than any other method of reasoning! I never said that it was groundless! If you pulled that from my posts, then you truly don't understand what I'm saying.

Questioning why induction is a good method of reasoning, is not saying that it is a bad one. Not finding a reason is not saying that it doesn't exist. Not justifying why it works does not mean it doesn't. Not justifying using it is not saying we can't justify using it. Not saying it is good is not saying it is bad. Saying that we haven't justified it being a better method of reasoning than any other is not saying that it is a no better method of reasoning.

Now I am saying that to make your argument, you are assuming the validity of induction in the very words you type. The assumption of induction's validity is implicit in your very questioning of
induction's validity. And you are questioning induction right? Where am I missing your argument, I'm pretty sure I know what you're saying.

Your argument doesn't work unless you assume all of those things that I have not said.

 

[Cthulhu]

I'm not questioning your intelligence. I really believe I did a bad job explaining it, judging by everyone's responses.

I'm not angry at you or anything, I just like to iron out my arguments when I can so I know whether I'm right or wrong, and if so how I can change my views. I apologize if I've come across otherwise, I'm just eager to debate.

I never said induction is not a bad method of reasoning! I never said that it doesn't work! I never said that we can't justify using it! I never said that it was bad! I never said that it was no better than any other method of reasoning! I never said that it was groundless! If you pulled that from my posts, then you truly don't understand what I'm saying.

This is one of your quotes from earlier: "It just drives me crazy to have to accept something with no evidence in support of it (since you can't use the evidence in this case to support induction without forming the problems I pointed out). I could just as easily accept counter-induction." If something has no evidence to support it, in my book that means its groundless.

Questioning why induction is a good method of reasoning, is not saying that it is a bad one. Not finding a reason is not saying that it doesn't exist. Not justifying why it works does not mean it doesn't. Not justifying using it is not saying we can't justify using it. Not saying it is good is not saying it is bad. Saying that we haven't justified it being a better method of reasoning than any other is not saying that it is a no better method of reasoning.

It really doesn't matter what you've said, your questioning is enough for me to respond: If someone were to argue against induction, they would fall into the trap I explained above, and be wrong.

Thus my concluding view on this whole matter (unless you point anything else out) is: One cannot argue correctly for induction (as you have explained), and One cannot argue correctly against it (as I have explained). Therefore it merely is or is not, and has no need for justification or replacement. Do you disagree?

 

[freejroll]

I'm not angry at you or anything, I just like to iron out my arguments when I can so I know whether I'm right or wrong, and if so how I can change my views. I apologize if I've come across otherwise, I'm just eager to debate.

I didn't think you were angry. I just read my post, and realized what it might sound like.

This is one of your quotes from earlier: "It just drives me crazy to have to accept something with no evidence in support of it (since you can't use the evidence in this case to support induction without forming the problems I pointed out). I could just as easily accept counter-induction." If something has no evidence to support it, in my book that means its groundless.

Just because someone doesn't find evidence to support something doesn't mean it isn't there. Doesn't mean it is, either.

It really doesn't matter what you've said, your questioning is enough for me to respond: If someone were to argue against induction, they would fall into the trap I explained above, and be wrong.

I think that arguing against something like this might lead to the same problems of arguing against logic or reason. However, questioning whether or not we have a basis for believing such things is healthy. Especially if we hold that some baseless dogmatic beliefs are wrong.

Thus my concluding view on this whole matter (unless you point anything else out) is: One cannot argue correctly for induction (as you have explained), and One cannot argue correctly against it (as I have explained). Therefore it merely is or is not, and has no need for justification or replacement. Do you disagree?

Yes, I do. I would not make a statement that one cannot argue for it. It might be possible. Tomorrow someone might come up with a good argument for it. In fact, someone might say it is possible and that people have did it. Some christians for example argue that induction works because God created the world, it exists through him, and God is unchanging. Their arguments are way more complex than this, and I don't mean to oversimplify them. It's just that I'm not trying to argue for or against this at the moment.

Someone might say that they are just taking the problem of induction one step back, too. Regardless, I wouldn't state an absolute like it can't be argued.

I might not state an absolute that it can't be argued against either. Who knows, we might come up with a whole new system of logic and rationality. One that disproves induction. Someone might have better arguments than you and I.

I also wouldn't state that it has no need for justification. That's a thin line to walk on. . .

 

[Cthulhu]

I don't like absolutes either, in fact I don't believe that anything is certain, not even my own existence. But I still like to take a stand on issues, however flexible that stand is.

 

[The_Idler]

Conclusion, with probability,
enables action, with flexibility.

 

[ebola?]

freejroll:

sorry to be a pompous jerk, but what do you think of my last couple post? Replies?
...
What do you think about the Popperian solution to the problem, namely the view that even empirical science is driven forward by deductive reasoning (via use of modus tollens to invalidate theories that do not pass disconfirmatory tests)?

ebola

 

[freejroll]

I'm leaving in a couple of minutes for a "field" trip haha for my job. I won't be back until next weekend.

 

[sariputa]

I'd just like to comment that I love any philosopher who throws a spanner in the works like Hume, Russel and his cosmic tea pot and Socrates making peoples beliefs seem farsical when held up to scrutiny. I'm not sure if you guys discussed Hume's views on cause and effect. I'm can vaguely remember him saying that simply because one thing follows another does not imply that the former caused the latter and that cause and effect are simply constructs used by a person to make sense of something we do not understand. Gotta love that kind of radical undermining of our assumptions.

 

[Cthulhu]

^why? what does it leave you with? besides confusion...

 

[callupjah]

I'm suprised no one had mentioned it's spelt 'Human'
Yes I need to work on my jokes...