The Humean Problem of Induction

[Cthulhu]

I agree that it is quite moot because no matter how good your reasoning against it is, you and everyone else will continue to use induction. You just will. Yeah this topic is fun to wrap the mind around, but it just leads to a dead end. You say you want a method of reasoning that "works," but can the concept of "it works" exist independent of induction? How do you determine if something "works," if not through induction? Just loops, all this argument is.

 

[freejroll]

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?

No. I don't think many people do. In fact, those that do, we would probably consider insane. I'm not trying to do away with induction, as I stated previously. I just think it's interesting that we chose to accept this method of reasoning as a valid one, when we have no good reason to do so. Claiming that I could fly would be just as valid an argument. To be sure, I seem to be an offender of accepting induction just as much as anyone else. I just think it's interesting to think about.

In the past, I've always believed that you should question everything, and now I realize that there are some things that you can't.

Honestly, I was only so stubborn in my thread so that I could be sure that everyone here understood the argument. It seems that everyone does.

 

[ebola?]

I wasn't trying to be presumptuous...just trying to get a feel of where youre coming from. now, if a very useful form of reasoning is invalid, shouldn't we look to new standards of validity...maybe?

ebola

 

[freejroll]

Well, you claimed "useful form" of reasoning. We can't say this. It changes your whole question, but to continue, should we look to new standards of validity? I don't know. How would we go about doing that?

 

[The_Idler]

it is not safe to believe ANYTHING

belief is blind, foolish.

consider only probability,
and act accordingly.

The Sun, as it has, for as long as we can know, risen every morning,
will MOST PROBABLY rise tomorrow,
as it is not likely that any event will occur, to prevent such an outcome.

Therefore, act accordingly:
as if the Sun will MOST PROBABLY rise in the morning.


apply this logic to every decision and thought process in your life,
and become enlightened, with regards to the true nature of the universe,
as well as the most logically probably successful way of leading your life.


btw a few to get you started:
God probably is not real.
Spirits, souls, ghosts and other non-physical entities probably do not exist,
and any events, which may be explained by such entities (including God(s)),
have more probable explanations, without such entities,
which are, by their nature, less probable explanations,
due to the fact that they do not exist in the physical world,
which is the only one we have demonstrably shown to probably exist.

 

[freejroll]

How do you get "probability?"

You say it's not safe to believe anything, but you tell us what to believe

 

[ebola?]

>>should we look to new standards of validity? I don't know. How would we go about doing that?>>

Well, I reject that valid statements (born of true premises) "correspond" to states of affairs in the world, "in itself". Neither do I think that statements simply correspond to the world, nor do I think that the universe "in itself" exists. Thus, we need new criteria for validity and truth. I have my guesses. What are yours?

 

[The_Idler]

How do you get "probability?"

You say it's not safe to believe anything, but you tell us what to believe

know only that you know nothing.



that is, everything is a possibility, with a different probability.

although I know that there may not be a universe, outside of my head-
I act as if there surely is, for my own sanity.
beyond this, i assume nothing.

in fact i do not even assume this.


i act to provide the greatest chance of success, in my subjective experience, in achieving pleasure.

based on previous subjective, probable observation,
combined with logic,
a probabilistic review of relevant subjective, probable experiences thus far
and examination of all relevant possibilities,
including their probabilities, and the factors probably contributing to those,
their relations, the uncertainties, the margins of error,
i can come to the conclusion of what actions i could undertake,
that would most probably lead me to the greatest pleasure,
in the most efficient way,
based only upon that, which i have subjectively observed,
and logically concluded.

and those, i undertake.



There you are,
the true scientist's cognitive methodology of decision-making.

Interesting?

 

[Rated E]

know only that you know nothing.



that is, everything is a possibility, with a different probability.

Awesomely quotable, so I did.

 

[Solitude_within]

A good method of reasoning would be one that works.

This says nothing about the process of logic used in your good method of reasoning. How exactly is it determined that a method of reasoning "works"? I'm still waiting for a concrete answer...

So once again, I ask you:

What exactly composes your "good method of reasoning" that allows you to dismiss induction? Moreover, what justifies using this method?

 

[freejroll]

You asked what I thought a good method of reasoning was.

I replied, "one that works."

We could determine that a method of reasoning works if it allows us to ascertain knowledge about the world. There are many schools of thought as to how we can ascertain this knowledge, but that is a separate question all together. In fact, it doesn't pertain to this discussion at all. So back on topic

Once again, I never dismissed induction. Please find where I did! I only said that we shouldn't justify using induction by using induction. That seems like a small circular argument, and one that is invalid. To be more clear, if this method of reasoning is infact valid. I could say that since induction has worked in the past, it should not work in the future. That is to say, use counter-induction to justify itself. The method of reasoning in each is identical. We are then stuck with two conclusions from the same method of reasoning. Induction works and induction doesn't work.

 

[The_Idler]

so, did you not like my answer to your qualms about my truly logical cognitive methodology of assessing, and probably-successfully acting within, the subjectively experienced world?

 

[freejroll]

so, did you not like my answer to your qualms about my truly logical cognitive methodology of assessing, and probably-successfully acting within, the subjectively experienced world?

Not particularly. I was just going to let it go. I have to be careful, I sense my arrogance coming out when I start discussing philosophy.

it is not safe to believe ANYTHING

Including that statement. Therefore it seems self-defeating.

belief is blind, foolish.

consider only probability,
and act accordingly.

While belief may be blind, this is not to say that it is foolish. In fact, even the belief that belief is foolish would be foolish. Once again, self-defeating.

Further, probability as I pointed out, presupposes that induction is a good method of reasoning, or that we have omniscience. If we aren't comfortable in either of these two, we shouldn't be comfortable with accepting probability.

The Sun, as it has, for as long as we can know, risen every morning,
will MOST PROBABLY rise tomorrow,
as it is not likely that any event will occur, to prevent such an outcome.

Therefore, act accordingly:
as if the Sun will MOST PROBABLY rise in the morning.

Once again, saying that the sun will "most probably" rise tomorrow is like saying induction is a good method of reasoning. Only in different words. In fact, it isn't addressing the problem, it's only restating it. That's easier.

apply this logic to every decision and thought process in your life,
and become enlightened, with regards to the true nature of the universe,
as well as the most logically probably successful way of leading your life.

This is an inductive statement. We are questioning that here in the first place. Again, this isn't addressing the problem. It is only restating it.

btw a few to get you started:
God probably is not real.
Spirits, souls, ghosts and other non-physical entities probably do not exist,
and any events, which may be explained by such entities (including God(s)),
have more probable explanations, without such entities,
which are, by their nature, less probable explanations,
due to the fact that they do not exist in the physical world,
which is the only one we have demonstrably shown to probably exist.

Once again, probability presupposes induction. If you are going to remain true to your convictions, you would want to say that everything is possible. Nothing is probable.

Further, all of these claims are just that. Claims. They pose no argument. I could say:
God is probably real.
Spirits, souls, ghosts, and other non-physical entities probably exist.
Any event, which may be explained by such entities, probably should.

And I would be making a statement with similar value to yours. In fact, I believe all of these statements!

know only that you know nothing

Self defeating.

that is, everything is a possibility, with a different probability.

Probability assumes a knowledge of every possible outcome. You admitted that you do not believe that, so you can't use it. In fact, you shouldn't even say it again, unless it is to say that you believe "probability doesn't exist."

although I know that there may not be a universe, outside of my head-
I act as if there surely is, for my own sanity.
beyond this, i assume nothing.

What defines sanity? It seems you are presupposing that a belief in an outside universe is correct, since you related it to sanity.

Further, you are assuming a lot of things. You already assumed a omniscience view of the world. You assumed that you exist. Since you assumed that there is an outside world, you assume that information about it can be learned. You assume that you have the faculties to do so. You assume a rationality about the universe. You assume you can learn things a priori as well as a posteriori. That is to say you assume we can learn things empirically and rationally. You assume lots and lots of things.

in fact i do not even assume this

You do if you are trying to converse with me

i act to provide the greatest chance of success, in my subjective experience, in achieving pleasure.

Greatest chance, is another way to say "probability."

based on previous subjective, probable observation,
combined with logic,

previous subjective, points at induction being a good method of reasoning. You assume this then.

Probable observation points at the ability to gain knoweldge through observation, it also points at omniscience or induction being a good method of reasoning.

Combined with logic assumes an explanation for the one and the many, it also assumes a rationality about the world. It also assumes that we can know this.

a probabilistic review of relevant subjective, probable experiences thus far
and examination of all relevant possibilities,

this again assumes omniscience. To state probability, as well as stating an examination of all relevant possibilities. To examine all relevant possibilities you have to have knowledge of all possibilities to know that you have all relevant ones in mind.

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.

 

[Dead_Flowers]

It seems like a few posters don't understand Hume's argument...

The Sun, as it has, for as long as we can know, risen every morning,
will MOST PROBABLY rise tomorrow,
as it is not likely that any event will occur, to prevent such an outcome.

Therefore, act accordingly:
as if the Sun will MOST PROBABLY rise in the morning.

How do past happenings lend any measure of probability to future events? How can we justify inductive reasoning? It should be noted that this question is rather stubborn, and begging will only make you look foolish...

 

[Cthulhu]

We justify it because the only alternative is insanity. (i cannot stay away from this thread, it's just one of those fundamental issues that I love)

 

[Dead_Flowers]

^That's not justification. That's just preference.

 

[Cthulhu]

No, I think that all humans have a basic drive toward happiness, and we justify induction because the alternative is chaos, terror, anguish... Induction is very healthy.

 

[Dead_Flowers]

^Well, I was looking for justification with regard to it's validity, not an explanation for it's use (as you've put forth). I've yet to see any reasoning put forth that is not circular.

Hume proposes that we come to believe things regarding causality by the force of custom or habit. Our psychology, the very nature of our minds, lends itself to believing that the future will model the past. After repeated experience of some causal event, we become accustomed to the effect following the cause, and establish a connection in our minds between the two. Almost by instinct we accumulate and esteem this causal knowledge.

Still, this propensity in our nature to construct our mental models by way of induction is a far cry from establishing the validity of said process.

 

[freejroll]

No, I think that all humans have a basic drive toward happiness, and we justify induction because the alternative is chaos, terror, anguish... Induction is very healthy.

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?

 

[skywise]

^^^
I'm not sure if you mentioned and refuted this somewhere, but it's worth considering Hume's solution:

Inductive beliefs are not rationally justified, but simply the result of an instinctual faculty that supplies us with fairly accurate information much more quickly than our slow, clumsy rational faculty does.