Is induction reliable?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » Is induction reliable? » Is induction reliable?

Is induction reliable?

mpoissant17
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 19, 2009
Location: near

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 31

Posted 03/30/09 - 04:36 PM: Subject: Is induction reliable?	#1
Personally I do not believe induction is a reliable process for gathering knowledge. There really are no better ways to gather knowledge since deduction and calculation both derive from an induction, but the fact remains that the information provided from observation is not absolutely certain. I have come to this conclusion for two reasons: 1. All people have different experiances of an event so one or even multiple experiances of that event would not be able to rely the entire aspect of that event 2. There could certainly be aspects of an event that we could be unable to experiance. Things that are beyond or senses or comprehension. If anyone can better explain or develop additional reasons that would be greatly appreciated since I believe these to be very loose explanations.
"Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality." Bertrand Russell

Mako
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 15, 2006
Location: In transit, somewhere in Nanjing

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 314

Posted 03/30/09 - 06:14 PM:	#2
Ok, in the first sentence you state that you do not think that induction is a reliable process. In the second sentence you state that "There really are no better ways to gather knowledge..." Am I correct in inferring then that you believe that induction is at least sufficient for our purposes? And it depends on what you mean by 'reliable.' If you mean 'certain,' then I'm guessing here that you're probably already aware that formal certainty is the province of math and logic. Regarding your two conclusions, it seems that you're basing your first conclusion on the vaguaries of human memory and the fact that individuals derive subjective impressions and feelings from experience. In spite of that, we can still extrapolate and rigourously test and measure objective facts which are separate from the subjective experiences of the observers. After all, that's what the scientific enterprise is largely about. As far as your second conclusion is concerned, yes humans are subject to epistemological constraints which limit our ability to observe and or comprehend. As well, my all-too limited understanding of the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics (at least one version of it) informs that there are 'absolute' limits as well (apart from our epistemological limits) to our ability to accurately measure certain variables simultaneously. These limitations however still do not prevent scientists from making fairly accurate predictions at the macro-level. Here's my own personal observation regarding inductions: It seems our capacity for reasoning naturally synthesizes inductive and deductive operations in most cases. Everyday, we make inductive inferences regarding experience based on our best guesses, habit or the fact that certain 'states' seem to hold over the vast majority of instances. We have to make inductive inferences in order to act upon our 'reasons.' If we didn't, we'd freeze in our tracks. Barring unusual circumstances, I assume the ground will hold beneath my feet when I take my next step. I'm not absolutely certain of that fact and no deduction will provide that certainty for me in the empirical world. But I have practical reasons for going on about my work. In order to preserve my life, my well-being and my rational agency, I have to pursue my practical goals by acting upon those inductions. So I don't believe that induction is a problem at least to the extent that inductive inferences are tested and limited through theoretical deductions. Rather induction is a fecund, practical capacity which allows us to act upon and proliferate (or expand) our practical reasons in the world. We move forward through theorizable, testable inductions; that is, any induction we make should be able to be subsumed within a theory from which decuctive predictions can then be made. The comprehensive, complementary nature of those deductive and inductive capacities is essentially what comprises 'human reason' in all its grand nobility as well as its ignoble imperfections and everything in between. Mako Edited by Mako on 03/30/09 - 06:24 PM
"To alcohol. The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems." ~ Homer Simpson

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004

Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 3844

Posted 03/30/09 - 06:43 PM:	#3
mpoissant17 wrote: I have come to this conclusion for two reasons: 1. All people have different experiances of an event so one or even multiple experiances of that event would not be able to rely the entire aspect of that event 2. There could certainly be aspects of an event that we could be unable to experiance. Things that are beyond or senses or comprehension. Your conclusion, "information provided from observation is not absolutely certain," does not follow from these two premises. 1. That people have different experiences does not mean that these people cannot rely on these experiences. 2. That there are aspects of events that cannot be experienced does not mean that what can be experienced is not certain. Of course, few, if any, people view induction as providing absolute certainty. However, your premises still do not establish that we cannot have a reasonable degree of surety that induction can lead to reliable inter-subjective beliefs. 1. That people have different experiences does not mean that these people cannot rely on these experiences, it does not mean that their experiences do not overlap. 2. That there are aspects of events that cannot be experienced does not mean that what can be experienced is not enough to have a reasonable approximation to an understanding of the aspects of that event that can be experienced.
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P Can you pass Religion 101?

Ratheius Netheros
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 15, 2005

Total Topics: 49
Total Posts: 304

Posted 03/30/09 - 06:59 PM:	#4
I wonder if induction is inductively reliable? Does induction benefit us more than it harms us? I'd be inclined to say yes, it does. A rather strange argument in favor of induction, but circularity isn't always bad, is it? Well, maybe it is.

reincarnated
the moving finger writes

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: on the road to Samarkand

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 2145

Posted 03/30/09 - 10:40 PM:	#5
Depends on just what you mean by "reliable". If by "reliable" you mean "leads to the truth" (where truth is defined in terms of the correspondence theory of truth) then this is very obvious. It's one of the characteristics of induction that inductive reasoning does not lead to certain truth. However if by "reliable" you mean "leads to coherent or reproducible results" then I disagree with you.
crumpled bits of paper, filled with imperfect thoughts... we all talk a different language, talking in defence... and if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be ok... (Mike & The Mechanics, "The Living Years")

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.