Philosophy Forums


New View On Induction
I'm Against Hume.

PrintPrint


Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

New View On Induction
Aetixintro
Concepts and descriptions
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008

Total Topics: 34
Total Posts: 387
Posted 09/15/09 - 04:29 PM:
Subject: New View On Induction
quote post
#1
First, the classical view on inference of induction is very mistaken. We have this moment right now. What do we make from it? Nothing changes. Everything changes. We are born and we are going to die. Life doesn't change at all. They are variations around the laws of nature. Along with scientific discoveries come change. The atom bomb has changed everything. Now nothing is the same. The internet is being born and again nothing is the same. We are set between regularities and irregularities. This is only seemingly so, I say. If we are to be deadly serious about our experience of nature that experience only reflects laws of nature. Clearly, the laws of nature can't be suspended. So the very attack on the classical inference from induction is this. When we experience something we actually perceive properties of the laws of nature. Of course, the nature is complex and it is thus compelling us to be very thorough! To hypothesise, if we could see one law of nature in effect at one time, span of time. We don't see this in several spans of time, but we get only this one chance in this example. So my assertion is consequently that because of the complexity of reality, we are used to perceiving facets of nature rather laboriously. We want to isolate instances to reflect only this mechanism that we are suspecting is a law of nature. So the real experience is really yielding truth in its very first instant. To be exact, you only need one case. When we see this apple falling from a tree, we should infer in that instant that objects can fall. When we see a birth of a human being we can infer that every human being is given birth. We need only the one instant. The remaining instances are really only psychological assurances and refinements of this one, first instance. The difference of my view from Hume's view should be striking. Hume asserts we can never know anything, we continously infer from regularities. I think logic, for example, reflects lawfulness of nature and so I infer that if nature exists somewhere, it has to conform to logic as we perceive it. It can't be any different. Edit: Now we have this situation that each single span of time, instance is sufficient in themselves very opposite to Hume's view. This is new to philosophy, isn't it?

What has been largely underdeterming our sense that everything remains the same, I suggest, have been scientific discoveries, be they the roundness of planet earth, black swans in Australia, the fantastic size of the universe, the minuteness of the smallest particles in nature, the common structure of DNA of living organisms, and power of fission and fusion, energy that is contained in matter. We see children sometime drawing purple dogs and objects rather alien in nature because they lack this notion of expectation or prediction. Their knowledge is not at our level, the complete in a sense. It's quite funny to think about the sci-fi writers wildness in exaggerating the changes of, let's say, the next 50 years. If there is something we can be certain of in this regard, it is that they exaggerate the future and that it will probably look more common and hospitable than what they write. It will nevertheless be different.

What do you think? Throw something at me! wink

Edited by Aetixintro on 09/26/09 - 06:52 PM

Efficacy of "for since it is at present manifest to me that even bodies are not properly known by the senses nor by the faculty of imagination, but by the understanding alone" - Descartes, Meditation II
I'm always wanting more, Anything I haven't got, Everything, I want it all, I just can't stop - The Cure, Want
Arkady
Assistant Professor
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 29, 2009

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 431
Posted 09/15/09 - 04:43 PM:
quote post
#2
Interesting post, but nothing you said undermines Hume's argument. If we observed an object fall and thus concluded that all objects fall, as you say, we are relying on induction, i.e. inferring a general truth from token observations (only 1 observation in this case). The best we can say is, "This object fell."

Even if we were to measure some physical constant (e.g. the gravitational constant), it gives us no guarantee that it will forever be so. That physical constant could change tomorrow (and I don't think I need to point out the problem of asserting it is constant because we call it a "constant").

"Sit down before fact like a little child, and be prepared to give up every preconceived notion. Follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature leads, or you shall learn nothing."
-T.H. Huxley
Aetixintro
Concepts and descriptions
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008

Total Topics: 34
Total Posts: 387
Posted 09/16/09 - 12:39 AM:
quote post
#3
I believe the laboratory instance of a falling object given certain conditions is that all objects in the same situation fall. Is the notion of falling objects a habit of the mind? On my account, no!

A couple links to start with:
Problem of induction on Wikipedia
The Problem of Induction on SEP

Also, I believe it's you, Arkady, who insert the notion of token observations that can be interpreted as all key observations that give rise to the formulation of new laws of nature, to knowledge.

Arkady wrote:
Even if we were to measure some physical constant (e.g. the gravitational constant), it gives us no guarantee that it will forever be so. That physical constant could change tomorrow (and I don't think I need to point out the problem of asserting it is constant because we call it a "constant").
This is exactly contrary to what I state. This is where you agree with Hume and I strongly disagree with Hume. Given the laboratory conditions of earth, like that is possible, it does indeed guarantee that it will forever be so. This is the very core of my message. The complexity of nature confounds us in our observations. It does, however, not mean that we can't learn from it if we have a good clue of what to look for, perhaps due to the discernment of that very complexity. What do you say?

Edit: I like to note in considering Descartes' Meditations we are led to believe in the difference of mind vs. the body and the external world. Further there is the conclusion "I think or I doubt, therefore I am", but it's generally overlooked that his meditations, outside of what he says, also give notions of nature's consistency and coherency of the environment of where that mind is situated wherever that may be, I assume in the brain, and of that mind itself. So clearly Descartes' demon that is bewildering us, is unable to deny us exactly that consistency and coherency. I believe we can use this to bridge our minds into the external world. Nature as a whole is consistent and coherent. We can perhaps use this as an axiom to make assertions of logic and structure in nature. It is worth mentioning that the very ceramic jar 3000 years ago is still a ceramic jar today. The consistency and coherency of nature has enabled us to rely on our descriptive domain for at least the last 5000 years. Changes in our perceptions have not come from within our descriptive domain. We might deduct earthquakes from that. Godzilla will never tear itself out of the ground of the earth to lay ruin to the world. This we can say with absolute certainty today. Our descriptive domain is this way!

Edit: The exact words! From http://18th.eserver.org/hume-enquiry.html.
David Hume - AN ENQUIRY CONCERNING HUMAN UNDERSTANDING - SECTION V - SCEPTICAL SOLUTION OF THESE DOUBTS - PART I wrote:
This principle is Custom or Habit. For wherever the repetition of any particular act or operation produces a propensity to renew the same act or operation, without being impelled by any reasoning or process of the understanding, we always say, that this propensity is the effect of Custom. By employing that word, we pretend not to have given the ultimate reason of such a propensity. We only point out a principle of human nature, which is universally acknowledged, and which is well known by its effects. Perhaps we can push our enquiries no farther, or pretend to give the cause of this cause; but must rest contented with it as the ultimate principle, which we can assign, of all our conclusions from experience. It is sufficient satisfaction, that we can go so far, without repining at the narrowness of our faculties because they will carry us no farther. And it is certain we here advance a very intelligible proposition at least, if not a true one, when we assert that, after the constant conjunction of two objects--heat and flame, for instance, weight and solidity-- we are determined by custom alone to expect the one from the appearance of the other. This hypothesis seems even the only one which explains the difficulty, why we draw, from a thousand instances, an inference which we are not able to draw from one instance, that is, in no respect, different from them. Reason is incapable of any such variation. The conclusions which it draws from considering one circle are the same which it would form upon surveying all the circles in the universe. But no man, having seen only one body move after being impelled by another, could infer that every other body will move after a like impulse. All inferences from experience, therefore, are effects of custom, not of reasoning.
Am I arguing for some custom? Absolutely not! Isn't the notion of token observation contrary to the notion of custom of observation? Some people call Hume a scepticist in this regard. Isn't this correct?

Edited by Aetixintro on 09/16/09 - 01:44 AM

Efficacy of "for since it is at present manifest to me that even bodies are not properly known by the senses nor by the faculty of imagination, but by the understanding alone" - Descartes, Meditation II
I'm always wanting more, Anything I haven't got, Everything, I want it all, I just can't stop - The Cure, Want
Mako
Assistant Professor

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

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 314
Posted 09/16/09 - 06:28 AM:
quote post
#4
Aetixintro wrote:


...So the very attack on the classical inference from induction is this.... When we experience something we actually perceive properties of the laws of nature....

To hypothesise, if we could see one law of nature in effect at one time... but we get only this one chance in this example. .. .

. . . .So the real experience is really yielding truth in its very first instant.... ... To be exact, you only need one case. When we see this apple falling from a tree, we should infer in that instant that objects can fall. When we see a birth of a human being we can infer that every human being is given birth.... ...

...I think logic, for example, reflects lawfulness of nature and so I infer that if nature exists somewhere, it has to conform to logic as we perceive it. It can't be any different. Now we have this situation that each instant is sufficient in themselves very opposite to Hume's view. This is new to philosophy isn't it?

What do you think?



Although some of your post is confusing, I have noticed a familiar theme, if I'm not mistaken.

A careful reading of your post brings to mind a few rudimentary concepts of Kant 's epistemology, specifically his Transcendental Logic whereby he posits a schema of twelve categories; his claim is that all experience must conform to the categories, within the faculty of understanding. This schema includes the category of 'causality. The categories are imposed 'a priori' onto all experience. Consequently we must perceive all experience in terms of cause and effect. and thus our inference that all experience conforms to lawlike regularities.

Edited by Mako on 09/16/09 - 06:34 AM

"To alcohol. The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems." ~ Homer Simpson
Aetixintro
Concepts and descriptions
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008

Total Topics: 34
Total Posts: 387
Posted 09/16/09 - 07:15 AM:
quote post
#5
Hello Mako
I don't disagree with Kant's view of causality. We are affected by causality in mind and body as we are in the world. The thing is that it's not my target. I'm against Hume's notion of this custom or habit that we are supposed to exert in our relationship with nature. I'm a little on the side of Kant and I'm trying to make an argument of our experience in regards to nature's laws. Perhaps much of our efforts are about isolating those instances that we are truly interested in to make those good decisions. Yes, I want to wreak havoc on Hume's custom or habit. It may be that Kant has been thinking the same thing. I don't know. Finally, are you in sympathy of Hume in this matter?

Edit: Traditionally, both Hume and Goodman are being quite some obstacles to constructive efforts in Philosophy of Science. At the same time, I like to pave the way through them, round Kuhn in showing that the enterprise of science is about scaling that Babel's tower straight into Heaven and God's nature or whatever that is at the top of the tower.

Edited by Aetixintro on 09/16/09 - 07:22 AM

Efficacy of "for since it is at present manifest to me that even bodies are not properly known by the senses nor by the faculty of imagination, but by the understanding alone" - Descartes, Meditation II
I'm always wanting more, Anything I haven't got, Everything, I want it all, I just can't stop - The Cure, Want
Noumenal1
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 14, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 39
Posted 09/16/09 - 01:56 PM:
quote post
#6
Kant's point of departure was Hume's analysis of causality. Mako is exactly correct with regard to Kant's position. With regard to experience, there is no analytic link between cause and effect, only a constant conjunction of events. The implication is that WE apply the a-priori intuition of causality, rather than discovering it independantly of it's application. The conceptual form in which we experience reality is supplied by mind, and there is no reason to suppose evolution to have 'equiped' us for all levels of reality. We see this in modern physics, where quantum mechanics cannot be formulated in term of causality, time, or space, consistently. Because of this no one understands QED, the underlying reality,.. even though we are able to make predictions.

Edited by Noumenal1 on 09/16/09 - 02:02 PM
Aetixintro
Concepts and descriptions
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008

Total Topics: 34
Total Posts: 387
Posted 09/16/09 - 03:14 PM:
quote post
#7
Point taken as it has been posted by Mako, ie. some time ago. We are considering "Hume's notion of this custom or habit that we are supposed to exert in our relationship with nature." This thread is not about Kant and his categories. I've been making a point concerning Descartes. "...but it's generally overlooked that his meditations, outside of what he says, also give notions of nature's consistency and coherency of the environment of where that mind is situated wherever that may be, I assume in the brain, and of that mind itself."

Edit: I may have been a bit rash. As a reaction to Hume's notion, Kant's views are of course, interesting. To me however, as Kant is seen as the transcendental idealist and putting forward the noumenon, I'm not exactly in agreement. In Philosophy of Science, I see myself as Scientific Realist and I try to envision a scientific view as far as possible. In fact, this is my duty! I think it's too early to make the verdict on fundamental knowledge of nature at this point. So back again, Hume's notion...

Besides, one of several threads that deal with Causation is here. I'm one of those who consistently place Causation, Causality in the Metaphysics discipline, but several, maybe, are dealing with it in Philosophy of Science like Stathis Psillos. In the upcoming British Journal of Philosophy of Science, there are several articles mentioning Causation. Very well!

Edited by Aetixintro on 09/16/09 - 03:26 PM

Efficacy of "for since it is at present manifest to me that even bodies are not properly known by the senses nor by the faculty of imagination, but by the understanding alone" - Descartes, Meditation II
I'm always wanting more, Anything I haven't got, Everything, I want it all, I just can't stop - The Cure, Want
Noumenal1
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 14, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 39
Posted 09/16/09 - 04:27 PM:
quote post
#8
Ok, but realize Kant was not an idealist. He rejected Hegel's application of his transcedental deduction.
Aetixintro
Concepts and descriptions
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008

Total Topics: 34
Total Posts: 387
Posted 09/16/09 - 04:42 PM:
quote post
#9
Noumenal1,
I make a search on SEP and come up with "435 entries found". I'm certainly not an expert on Kant even though I've had this magnificent revelation of his philosophy reading a two-volume history of philosophy work. At least it's noted on Wikipedia that one of his notable ideas is Transcendental Idealism. Let's not get hooked up on this! Where are you going? What views do you have?

Efficacy of "for since it is at present manifest to me that even bodies are not properly known by the senses nor by the faculty of imagination, but by the understanding alone" - Descartes, Meditation II
I'm always wanting more, Anything I haven't got, Everything, I want it all, I just can't stop - The Cure, Want
Mako
Assistant Professor

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

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 314
Posted 09/16/09 - 07:53 PM:
quote post
#10
Hume of course didn't deny the fact that induction was useful, he merely despaired over the fact that conclusions from inductive inferences were not deductively valid.

However what I see as the problem here is the fact that deduction, as a formal field of study, is typically 'abstacted apart' from its practical usage within 'human reason,' that is reason as a comprehensive faculty within the mind/brain. For us humans, it must be kept in mind that both deduction and induction are practical functions which complement each other.

But moreover, the larger problem stems from how concepts themselves are constructed within the mind and how that relates to a cogent theory of 'rule-following.'

What I mean is that inductive generalizations' as well as rules of deductive inference use features which are common to all aspects of reason. So for instance, deductive logic uses 'discrete symbols' as well as necessitating, discrete, sequential operations. Each logical symbol represents a separate 'totality' by itself.

Inductive generalizations tend toward the same thing. So from a limited number of observed instances, we infer a totality, that is, we infer a discrete (distinct) feature which is and thus 'whole,' and now 'manageable and more importantly 'conceivable' within the mind. It would seem our minds have a strong tendency to convert what is a partial, continuous (analog) series and chop it up into discrete, separately manageable units, which function as totalities in themselves. Thus both capacities (inductive and deductive) are linked by the tendency to follow rules via discrete packets of information.

The problem is, we can't separate our inductive capacity as a practical function, from our deductive capactiy as a practical function within the larger faculty of reason. Both of them are interdependent and stem from two other capacities which are linked: 1)'discrete, analytic conceptualization' and 2) our capacity for 'rule-following.'

Deduction should not therefore be seen as the 'sovereign-faculty of reason,' as it were. It is rather a coequal complement to induction within human reason. Human reason as a global capacity, includes both in order to maintain rational balance/homeostasis (i.e. rational agency).

For me there is no 'problem of induction.' Induction is a productive, rational capacity within human reason. Rather the apparent problem stems from attempting to separate-out deduction (as a formal, analytic study in itself) from it's practical function, within the comprehensive faculty of human reason, whereby both capacities (inductive and deductive) are subsumed.

Edited by Mako on 09/17/09 - 04:16 AM

"To alcohol. The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems." ~ Homer Simpson
Download thread as

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6



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