The Humean Problem of Induction

[Jamshyd]

If we can't justify using it, though, why should we use it? I can't justify that we should not use induction. Does this mean that we should start not using induction? Do you see the problem? AAH!!

I see it, but I don't care, since I have actual issues to worry about at the moment .

 

[freejroll]

But I can justify using it. I can't justify that it will provide absolutely certain knowledge, but I can justify using it simply because it has worked in the past, so it's probable that it will work in the future. Or at least more probable that it will provide more desirable results than randomly acting as if there are no rules or trends in the universe.

The results it has produced in the past are justification for its use in the future, even if it only provides outcomes that are "better than chance".

But you can't justify using it by using that method. Its not a valid argument. By not a valid argument, I don't simply mean that it's a "bad" argument or a weak argument. It's not a valid argument. You also cannot state that it is "more probable" for reasons I posted in previous posts. And you can't state that it's "better than chance."

I see it, but I don't care, since I have actual issues to worry about at the moment

I would say that having no justification for science or this method of reasoning is a pretty big "actual issue." Unless you disagree.

 

[Jamshyd]

Seriously freejoll, get a life! (and drop the meth pipe while you're at it ).

ps. No offense intended

 

[neonads]

The idea of the existence of absolute knowledge was also obtained by induction...

 

[freejroll]

Seriously freejoll, get a life! (and drop the meth pipe while you're at it ).

ps. No offense intended

Hah, I actually have a pretty good life and don't do meth. This issue isn't something that I made up by any means. It's a pretty big issue in philosophy.

This issue has been a rather large epistemological dilemma since it was introduced. No one has ever been able to solve it, that I know of, and I'd like to say that I'm read up a little on philosophy (I have a M.A. in it...). I didn't really bring it up to you guys hoping that you would solve it, though that would be pretty sweet! However, no one really has been able to (not even the big brains of past), and I'm not even sure that it's solvable. However, it means that we have no good reason to use induction and we have no good reason for science. Incredible claims, I realize.

Anyway, I brought the issue up, mainly to see what you guys thought of it, or to introduce it to you (since it seems that no one has heard of it...). This is the philosophy forum, so I thought that a major philosophy problem would be a good topic here. You seem to disagree with me, though

 

[neonads]

I think it's more like we've taken it as a given and were waiting for your perspective.

 

[Cthulhu]

This is just a personal attack, lol I don't know why. I have made no claims of my beliefs or anything crazy like that. I'm only pointing out a philosophical problem that has never been solved (as far as I know).

You haven't really addressed the problems with using induction at all. I'm not sure that we can justify using it. You seem to want to suggest that we don't have to justify using things in order to use them. This is a fine suggestion, but it will definately lead to chaos, and I definately don't believe that you want to bear the consequences of this claim. Instead we should decide if we can justify induction.

Nah not a personal attack, sorry if it came across that way. Was coming off a trip and saw this thread, responded with an unorthodox approach to philosophy and mixed a little humor in. My point basically boils down to this (coming from someone who has thought it through with you and agrees with what you have said): questioning induction obsessively will lead you nowhere (maybe question it a bit, just to satisfy) except insanity. Furthermore, even if you intellectually do not see a valid justification of induction, if I put a gun to your head and ask you "if I let go of this pen I'm holding in my hand, will it drop? Answer wrong and you're dead..." you will undoubtedly save your ass using induction. Of course the rules of induction are not infallible, and indeed they have led science astray at times, but generally speaking induction seems to be useful for discerning patterns in the universe - if you believe in patterns, then it follows that induction is useful. Maybe one day all the patterns in the universe will break down and induction will be useless resulting in chaos, but until then...

 

[freejroll]

My point basically boils down to this (coming from someone who has thought it through with you and agrees with what you have said): questioning induction obsessively will lead you nowhere (maybe question it a bit, just to satisfy) except insanity. Furthermore, even if you intellectually do not see a valid justification of induction, if I put a gun to your head and ask you "if I let go of this pen I'm holding in my hand, will it drop? Answer wrong and you're dead..." you will undoubtedly save your ass using induction.

But will it actually drop? We seem to have no good reason to believe it will. Yet we might hold to this belief (that the pen will drop) almost dogmatically. I wonder why we would hold to a belief such as this, that the pen will drop instead of holding to the opposite, that because in the past the pen has dropped, in the future it will not.

This isn't a trick question, or one you could answer most likely. It's just my (and others') question regarding induction.

Of course the rules of induction are not infallible, and indeed they have led science astray at times, but generally speaking induction seems to be useful for discerning patterns in the universe - if you believe in patterns, then it follows that induction is useful.

Well, belief in the "patterns" definately entails induction itself. And you've gave me a good reason as to why we've used induction in the past, but i'm curious as to why we should continue using it in the future.

Again, I'm not really expecting an answer. It's just something to think about

I think it's more like we've taken it as a given and were waiting for your perspective.

You won't find a hidden agenda from me here. I just thought it was an interesting topic.

 

[Cthulhu]

Well, belief in the "patterns" definately entails induction itself. And you've gave me a good reason as to why we've used induction in the past, but i'm curious as to why we should continue using it in the future.

what is our alternative?

 

[Cthulhu]

But will it actually drop? We seem to have no good reason to believe it will. Yet we might hold to this belief (that the pen will drop) almost dogmatically. I wonder why we would hold to a belief such as this, that the pen will drop instead of holding to the opposite, that because in the past the pen has dropped, in the future it will not.

We may have no good reason to believe it, but I'm saying that you will believe it regardless. Isn't that significant - that an intellectual reasoning is too weak to overpower an innate understanding (or misunderstanding if induction were not useful)? The fact that we humans are programmed to use it means that if induction ever stopped being useful, we would all die very quickly - so if we confront the world with the question "Will induction be useful in the future?" - lets look at our options.
1) We say yes and we are right - good for us.
2) We say yes and we are wrong - too bad.
3) We say no and are right - too bad cause we're screwed anyway, the universe is falling apart.
4) We say no and are wrong - well now we're just acting crazy.

So: saying no doesn't give us any useful options, so might as well say yes and hope for the best.

 

[neonads]

You won't find a hidden agenda from me here. I just thought it was an interesting topic.

Oh there's no problem there, we're all independent thinkers in this forum. I guess we were all using induction and expecting you to expand on the topic instead of slamming on the brakes. I guess we were wrong and you got me thinking about it so, yeah, good thread dude.

 

[freejroll]

We may have no good reason to believe it, but I'm saying that you will believe it regardless. Isn't that significant - that an intellectual reasoning is too weak to overpower an innate understanding (or misunderstanding if induction were not useful)? The fact that we humans are programmed to use it means that if induction ever stopped being useful, we would all die very quickly - so if we confront the world with the question "Will induction be useful in the future?" - lets look at our options.
1) We say yes and we are right - good for us.
2) We say yes and we are wrong - too bad.
3) We say no and are right - too bad cause we're screwed anyway, the universe is falling apart.
4) We say no and are wrong - well now we're just acting crazy.

So: saying no doesn't give us any useful options, so might as well say yes and hope for the best.

I may believe it regardless. Or I may stop. Who knows? I don't really agree with you here, but I can definately see what you are trying to say. 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.

You asked what I suggest, and I don't really have anything. Philosophy really has never showed us anything but that reasoning, and logic, and science, and thought were full of problems and that there may be no justification for these things. As a society we have went through maybe millions of years using a system that might not work (or it might), but one that we have really no good reason to use. Sometimes it's hard to question these things, since we can't completely come out of the box that we created for ourselves to do so. This is why I like philosophy. I believe that the most free thinkers are actually those who just are able to see that they don't really think freely at all. At least this is my opinion. Maybe one day...

 

[freejroll]

Oh there's no problem there, we're all independent thinkers in this forum. I guess we were all using induction and expecting you to expand on the topic instead of slamming on the brakes. I guess we were wrong and you got me thinking about it so, yeah, good thread dude.

Yea, I could sense that maybe everyone in this thread thought that I was trying to make a new argument or support some belief of my own. I was just trying to discuss philosophy, lol! It's good for the mind to work it. There are tons of problems that philosophy has shown. This is just one. I'm sure I'll start more threads on those in the future.

 

[Solitude_within]

freejroll, what would an "anti-inductionist" have to say about mathematics? Would two plus two always equal four? Or would that too fail the induction test?

Also, how do we have knowledge of anything at all, since most of our information is gained by experiencing things in the past?

Thanks.

 

[freejroll]

freejroll, what would an "anti-inductionist" have to say about mathematics? Would two plus two always equal four? Or would that too fail the induction test?

Also, how do we have knowledge of anything at all, since most of our information is gained by experiencing things in the past?

Thanks.

I'm not an anti-inductionist, so I'm not quite sure if I'm qualified to answer your question. Its just that there doesn't seem to be any good reason to accept induction as a good method of reasoning. This doesn't mean that I believe it is false. It could be a good method of reasoning. We just don't know how to justify this. Which of course leads us to question why we accept it in the first place...

I think mathematics is primarily a language that is deductive. I believe there are inductive principles in some mathematics, but your question seems to be primarily aimed at deduction. Though I could be wrong!

It is interesting to note that philosophy has pointed out many problems in mathematics, too. The problem of the one and the many plays into this very much. Depending on your philosophical stance on epistemology or ontology, some people might think that 2 + 2 does not equal 4. In fact, a monist, believing that all plurality is an illusion (and all is in fact one) might be forced to claim that 1 + 1 = 1. There are many questions about the validity of mathematics.

Sounds crazy, but there are actually very good arguments against mathematics in philosophy. Many people don't read about them because they don't go searching for them, and someone running around claiming that mathematics doesn't work and that 1 + 1 = 1, would generally be shut off by the public, and his arguments wouldn't be considered. The same goes for induction. Besides we seemed to have created a system for ourselves, and if we are to decide that it doesn't really work, or we have no good reason to believe in it, it could lead to chaos. It makes good thinking and conversation, though. I definately believe these problems are important. It's just that, well, regardless, it's kind of hard to debate them and if we did, it would be a million times harder to fix them.

For example, mathematics tells us that there are more irrational numbers than rational numbers (the diagonalization method proves this) or more real numbers than rational numbers (this proof is easy, since real encompasses rational and irrational). However, both classes continue to infinity, which seems to suggest that there are different levels of infinity. This doesn't seem to make much since, since infinity is... well infinity.. All of these questions have been debated for some time (and good answers have come out -- whether correct or incorrect). It would be a good topic for another thread for sure.

And for your last question, I don't know how we have knowledge of anything at all. Do we?

 

[Solitude_within]

I would contend that you actually are an anti-inductionist, because you believe that

there doesn't seem to be any good reason to accept induction as a good method of reasoning.

I'm still trying to understand what you would consider a "good method of reasoning". What exactly entails such a logic?

 

[freejroll]

No, to be sure, I am not. Believing that there is no good reason to accept something is not the same thing as rejecting that thing.

A good method of reasoning would be one that works.

 

[ebola?]

I would say that the knowledge we produce doesn't correspond to "states of affairs" but rather the products of our investigations are to be used as tools, in future interactions with the world. If the tool ceases to work (that is, the future no longer matches the past), we (should) put it down and either find an old one that does better or make a new one. Thus, we don't have to worry about induction's failure to point to the future, because induction no longer claims to do so.

Now, of course there is no guarantee that the future will mirror the past. Stuff changes, and so should we.

ebola

 

[freejroll]

I would say that the knowledge we produce doesn't correspond to "states of affairs" but rather the products of our investigations are to be used as tools, in future interactions with the world. If the tool ceases to work (that is, the future no longer matches the past), we (should) put it down and either find an old one that does better or make a new one. Thus, we don't have to worry about induction's failure to point to the future, because induction no longer claims to do so.

Now, of course there is no guarantee that the future will mirror the past. Stuff changes, and so should we.

ebola

The problem with this is that, as I've been saying, we have no good reason to believe that because the future has matched the past in the past, it will continue to do so in the future. You are drawing an inference using an invalid method.

Further, contrary to your second suggestion, our approach shouldn't be to use this method until it doesn't work anymore. If this were the case we could justify using any method once.

Solitude_within, I have been thinking about your question regarding mathematics, and I believe I have a much clearer answer. it also intrigued me to create a thread about the very thing. I'm working a 24 hour shift today until tomorrow (yuck!) but I'll start working on it afterwards. It's really interesting stuff!

 

[ebola?]

>>The problem with this is that, as I've been saying, we have no good reason to believe that because the future has matched the past in the past, it will continue to do so in the future. You are drawing an inference using an invalid method.>>

1. Well, we can look back and see how past pasts predicted past futures. We could infer a generalized law of the connection between the past and future. But this doesn't get us anywhere, as there's no reason that this law should hold for the future.
2. What I'm trying to do is change the system of inference, in terms of both meaning and criteria for validity.

>>
Further, contrary to your second suggestion, our approach shouldn't be to use this method until it doesn't work anymore. If this were the case we could justify using any method once. >>

Okay. Well, we could try to use new tools congruent with what the outcomes of prior tool use say to us, but this would be more of a rule of thumb to make our lives easier rather than a rule for valid inference.
...
It's quite moot, but I have to ask about the practical relevance of this. Do you act as if inference about the future is useless because it is invalid?

ebola