# Inductive Reasoning?



## no1special18 (Mar 21, 2006)

I would like to pose a similar question as knight did. Is God really necessary for inductive reasoning. In epistemology we were talking about how an atheist cannot reason that the sun will come up tomorrow because there is no guarantee (outside of theism) that the future will be like the past. I do not agree. The atheist could claim that the consistency of the laws of science allows a person to reason the sun will come up tomorrow. What do you guys think?


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 21, 2006)

why are the laws consistent?


----------



## no1special18 (Mar 21, 2006)

I do not know how they would argue the laws are consitent. However, I do not believe we can argue for God being consistent outside of special revelation. Furthermore, if we argue in circles, the future is like the past because God is consistent, we know God is consistent because we rely know the future is like the past. They know the future is like the past because science is consistent, they know science is consistent because the future is like the past.


----------



## Arch2k (Mar 21, 2006)

Inductive reasoning is not logical, it is always fallacious. Faulty reasoning is a part of the fallen world, and not to be attributed to God In my humble opinion.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Mar 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Inductive reasoning is not logical, it is always fallacious. Faulty reasoning is a part of the fallen world, and not to be attributed to God In my humble opinion.



Fallacious and Faulty are two different games. Fallacious speaks to the form, Faulty speaks to the ability to reach a goal. Without accepting induction, you could never learn anything.


----------



## no1special18 (Mar 21, 2006)

do you think induction necessitates God?


----------



## Ron (Mar 21, 2006)

The atheist will have to say that in all probability the future will be like the past (i.e. in all probability there is uniformity in nature), yet probability presupposes this uniformity, which is the very thing the atheist needs to prove.

Ron


----------



## Civbert (Mar 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by no1special18_
> I would like to pose a similar question as knight did. Is God really necessary for inductive reasoning. In epistemology we were talking about how an atheist cannot reason that the sun will come up tomorrow because there is no guarantee (outside of theism) that the future will be like the past. I do not agree. The atheist could claim that the consistency of the laws of science allows a person to reason the sun will come up tomorrow. What do you guys think?



Whatever guarantee there is of the sun rising tomorrow, James seems to say we Christians can't "know" it will any better than the atheist can.



> Come now, you who say, "Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a city, spend a year there, buy and sell, and make a profit"; whereas you do not know what will happen tomorrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapor that appears for a little time and then vanishes away.
> _(Jam 4:13-14 NKJV)_


----------



## Civbert (Mar 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...



Interestingly, induction is both fallacious and faulty. In principle, only deduction if infallible. If you have true premises and form, then the conclusions must follow. Ontologically speaking, the premises and conclusion are both facts if true, true eternally. 

But induction is formally fallacious. Therefor the conclusion does not follow from the premises - no matter how you slice it, the conclusion is not necessarily true even if the premises are true. Observe 10 million black crows with not make all crows black. And it's known that there are white crows. So the fallacy is for good reason, you can not infer a general truth from the particulars. 

It seems that to argue that Christianity justifies induction is to claim that Christianity justifies irrationalism. (Not that you have argued this, I'm just making this point.)

Induction is still a useful part of learning - but only because it's a short-cut for setting up deductive arguments. We inductively produce conclusions and premises, then try to prove them deductively. It would be tedious to try to deduce everything from premise to conclusion to premise to conclusion. So we use induction to shortcut the process. But since it's fallible (in principle and fact), we shouldn't justify knowledge with inductive argumentation.

[Edited on 3-22-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Civbert (Mar 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> why are the laws consistent?



Are they? Which ones? The only one's I know of are the laws of logic. Other than those, the rest are up for grabs.


----------



## Ron (Mar 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by no1special18_
> ...



Civbert,

That is a terrible proof text to make your point. James assumes that tomorrow will occur as today. What he brings into question whether we'll be able to act upon our intentions tomorrow.

Ron


----------



## Ron (Mar 21, 2006)

> Interestingly, induction is both fallacious and faulty.



Not when dealing with probability, which is why you can rightly say "Induction is still a useful part of learning..."

Ron


----------



## Ron (Mar 21, 2006)

To conclude that something is true by inductive inference is to employ the fallacy of asserting the consequent"¦yet Christians have a more sure word of knowledge. Moreover, that the Christian worldview is "more reasonable" than the non-Christian worldview remains unjustified because the question of whether one is even philosophically justified in his use of induction, so that rational inference may be drawn, has not been established. There are no freebies in Philosophy. Taken from: http://reformedapologist.blogspot.com/

[Edited on 3-22-2006 by Ron]


----------



## rmwilliamsjr (Mar 22, 2006)

> But induction is formally fallacious. Therefor the conclusion does not follow from the premises - no matter how you slice it, the conclusion is not necessarily true even if the premises are true. Observe 10 million black crows with not make all crows black. And it's known that there are white crows. So the fallacy is for good reason, you can not infer a general truth from the particulars.



ok. i'll bite. this is nonsense.

*But induction is formally fallacious*
what does formally fallacious mean?
it appears to mean something like: by it's very nature, induction leads to conclusions that are not true. ok. induction never claims 100% truth for it's conclusion, it claims probabilities, all of which are less than 100%. if by that you mean formally fallacious, then i guess it is, so what?

*Therefor the conclusion does not follow from the premises*
induction does not have premises, especially in the form that deductive reasoning does.
the conclusion does not follow from the premises, is the wrong vocabulary for induction. see something like: http://www-static.cc.gatech.edu/~id.../ProofMethods/Induction/ProofByInduction.html for the proper vocabulary.

*the conclusion is not necessarily true even if the premises are true.*
induction never proves anything like deduction does, it demonstrates probabilities, it looks at relationships, it never discovers necessary truths. 

*Observe 10 million black crows with not make all crows black.*
why switch to crows, isn't swans good enough?
the fact is that black species of swan exist, there are albino crows, but no species of white crows. using crows misses the whole point of the swan example.

*So the fallacy is for good reason,*
what good reason, induction is not deduction, it doesn't do the same thing, nor the same method, why should it, it is a different tool? 
yes, you can infer generalities from particulars, but the probability of the connection is always less than 100%, hence the problem of induction.

what you have shown, beyond the fact that you seem to have no idea of what induction is, is that induction "does not equal" deduction. ok. that much is true.

sorry to sound so harsh, but i simply see no reason to allow misinformation like this to go unchallenged and unrebuttalled, especially since you have that nice link to a logic site in your .sig. you managed to show that induction is not deduction. so what? a hammer is not a screwdriver, that much i knew before i read your posting.

[Edited on 3-22-2006 by rmwilliamsjr]


----------



## Ron (Mar 22, 2006)

Richard,

For some, it is quite a profound experience to first realize that induction does not provide the certainty of deduction. From this truth, many argue as if induction always provides fallacious conclusions. The conlcusions are fallacious if they are couched as being true as opposed to more probably true than if something were not the case. Having said that, there are others who believe they can know with the same certainty that which is inferred as compared to that which is deduced. Consequently, the drum still needs to be banged a bit.

Ron


----------



## Civbert (Mar 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Civbert_
> ...



James did not say tomorrow will occur as today. James says we can't know what will happen tomorrow. He doesn't simply say we don't know what _we_ are going to do tomorrow, but that we can't even know _whatever_ will happen tomorrow. We are only aware of the moment, the future is not knowable - it a guess, not matter what odds or probabilities we calculate, it is still a matter of faith. The most we know of the future is God's plans for it, but we do not know the time or day those plans will be fulfilled. So we don't know that the sun will rise tomorrow. There is no deductive justification for the sun rising in the future. If God wills it, then the sun will rise. If God wills it, the sun will be still, neither setting or rising.



> Then Joshua spoke to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel: "Sun, stand still over Gibeon; And Moon, in the Valley of Aijalon." So the sun stood still, And the moon stopped, Till the people had revenge Upon their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.
> _(Jos 10:12-13 NKJV)_
> 
> 
> ...




P.S. If we make induction the criteria for knowledge, then we should know that the rules of induction prove the sun can not stand still. This would make the Scripture contradict the truth. 

[Edited on 3-22-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Arch2k (Mar 22, 2006)

Induction commits the fallacy of "asserting the consequent." This way of reasoning is always fallacious. This is not to say that the conclusion is wrong, but the way of getting to the conclusion does not follow.

For example:

When it rains, the streets get wet.
The streets are wet.
Therefore it must have rained.

Now this may be true when examining 95% of wet streets, but what about the street that has just been hit by the local fire hydrant, or lawn sprinkler?

Arguing from the specific to the general is always fallacious, and cannot furnish us with truth because the conclusion is not justified from the premises.


----------



## rmwilliamsjr (Mar 22, 2006)

* Induction commits the fallacy of "asserting the consequent." *



> Type: Fallacy of Propositional Logic
> Form:
> 
> If p then q.
> ...


from: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/afthecon.html

induction is not a topic in propositional logic.
it is a type of logic(or reasoning). at the same level of discussion as deductive and abductive. propositional logic is a subtopic of deductive logic. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive for evidence of this assertation.

please read something like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
for more general information on the topic

you are committing a category error or the error of confusing the levels in a discussion.

*
Arguing from the specific to the general is always fallacious, and cannot furnish us with truth because the conclusion is not justified from the premises. *



> Generalization
> 
> A generalization (more accurately, an inductive generalization) proceeds from a premise about a sample to a conclusion about the population:
> 
> ...


from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning#Generalization

Arguing from the specific to the general is always probabilistic, and cannot furnish us with absolute or 100% truth because the premises only supply evidence for the conclusion.
along the line of legal terms, some evidence is beyond reasonable doubt while other demonstrates only a preponderance, none of which is absolutely certain, hence the need for levels indicated by reasonable doubt etc.


----------



## Arch2k (Mar 22, 2006)

Truth that is not 100% is not truth at all.


----------



## Arch2k (Mar 22, 2006)

*Noah Webster on Definition of \"truth\"*

Truth
TRUTH, n.

1. Conformity to fact or reality; exact accordance with that which is, or has been, or shall be. The truth of history constitutes its whole value. We rely on the truth of the scriptural prophecies.

My mouth shall speak truth. Prov 8.

Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth. John 17.

2. True state of facts or things. The duty of a court of justice is to discover the truth. Witnesses are sworn to declare the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

3. Conformity of words to thoughts, which is called moral truth.

Shall truth fail to keep her word?

4. Veracity; purity from falsehood; practice of speaking truth; habitual disposition to speak truth; as when we say, a man is a man of truth.

5. Correct opinion.

6. Fidelity; constancy.

The thoughts of past pleasure and truth.

7. Honesty; virtue.

It must appear

That malice bears down truth.

8. Exactness; conformity to rule.

Plows, to go true, depend much on the truth of the iron work. [Not in use.]

9. Real fact of just principle; real state of things. There are innumerable truths with which we are not acquainted.

10. Sincerity.

God is a spirit, and they that worship him must worship in spirit and in truth. John 4.

11. The truth of God, is his veracity and faithfulness. Psa 71.

Or his revealed will.

I have walked in thy truth. Psa 26.

12. Jesus Christ is called the truth. John 14.

13. It is sometimes used by way of concession.

She said, truth, Lord; yet the dogs eat of the crums-- Mat 15.

That is, it is a truth; what you have said, I admit to be true.

In truth, in reality; in fact.

Of a truth, in reality; certainly.

To do truth, is to practice what God commands. John 3.


----------



## rmwilliamsjr (Mar 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Truth that is not 100% is not truth at all.





> II. This sanctification is throughout, in the whole man;[7] yet imperfect in this life, there abiding still some remnants of corruption in every part;[8] whence arises a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.[9]


from: WCF Chapter XIII Of Sanctification

"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect" (Matt 5:48)

Appears to me that certainity, 100% absolute truth, belong to God
and probablistic truth is the best i can aspire to on this side of God's judgment.
even if i could fully understand God's perfect truth, i suspect that my sins would interfere with keeping that copy internally at 100% or even worse being able to express it in its orginal purity.

but isn't the topic- logic? why can't i understand that on the level it strives for? why must i incorporate theology in it, even before i've had an opportunity to understand what other people are talking about concerning it.

you may have the last word, i am interested in understanding logic on it's own terms. i find theologizing it of little value except as an exercise in rhetoric. 

[Edited on 3-22-2006 by rmwilliamsjr]


----------



## Arch2k (Mar 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by rmwilliamsjr_
> 
> 
> > II. This sanctification is throughout, in the whole man;[7] yet imperfect in this life, there abiding still some remnants of corruption in every part;[8] whence arises a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.[9]
> ...



Without God, and his revelation, there is no truth. "œProbablistic truth" I believe to be a contradiction in terms as I have noted above.



> _Originally posted by rmwilliamsjr_
> even if i could fully understand God's perfect truth, i suspect that my sins would interfere with keeping that copy internally at 100% or even worse being able to express it in its orginal purity.



Ah, but this is contrary to scripture, for the Holy Spirit teaches leads us into all truth!

Joh 16:13 "However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. 

This is why truth should be defined as those propositions in scripture and whatever may be logically deduced from them.



> _Originally posted by rmwilliamsjr_
> but isn't the topic- logic? why can't i understand that on the level it strives for? why must i incorporate theology in it, even before i've had an opportunity to understand what other people are talking about concerning it.



Logic is founded upon God´s word, and a form of "œlogic" that does not come from scripture is simply an invention of men.

1Co 1:19 For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent." 
1Co 1:20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 



> _Originally posted by rmwilliamsjr_
> you may have the last word, i am interested in understanding logic on it's own terms. i find theologizing it of little value except as an exercise in rhetoric.



I don´t understand why, for if logic used in scripture, and God has promise to give us everything necessary for faith and life in scripture, why should we not derive our understanding of logic from the bible?

2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 
2Ti 3:17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.


----------



## Ron (Mar 22, 2006)

Civbert States: Whatever guarantee there is of the sun rising tomorrow, James seems to say we Christians can't "know" it will any better than the atheist can: "œCome now, you who say, "Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a city, spend a year there, buy and sell, and make a profit"; whereas you do not know what will happen tomorrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapor that appears for a little time and then vanishes away."
_(Jam 4:13-14 NKJV)_

Civbert,

That is a terrible proof text to make your point. James assumes that tomorrow will occur as today. What he brings into question whether we'll be able to act upon our intentions tomorrow.

Ron [/quote]



> James did not say tomorrow will occur as today. James says we can't know what will happen tomorrow.



Civbert,

The reason James gives for not being able to know what will occur tomorrow is that our life is but a vapor. It is impossible to deduce from the text that we don´t know what will occur tomorrow because of the possibility of tomorrow not ever arriving, which addresses your original point. Whether tomorrow is necessary or not is not taught in the text. All that is taught in the text is that our lives are not necessary. Accordingly, this text may not be used as a proof-text for not knowing that the sun will rise tomorrow. That's the only point I'm trying to make.

{Having said that, the James passage may not be used as a proof text for knowing that the sun will come up tomorrow. Notwithstanding, tomorrow is presupposed, not to give us an understanding that tomorrow must come necessarily, but in order to argue that you do not know what you will do tomorrow, not because tomorrow might not arrive but because you might not be here tomorrow "“ which presupposes tomorrow. Again though, that tomorrow will therefore come necessarily cannot be deduced from the text either.} 

Grace and peace,

Ron

[Edited on 3-22-2006 by Ron]


----------



## Ron (Mar 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Induction commits the fallacy of "asserting the consequent." This way of reasoning is always fallacious. This is not to say that the conclusion is wrong, but the way of getting to the conclusion does not follow.
> 
> For example:
> ...



Jeff,

Would you accept what induction is good for:

When it rains, the streets typically get wet and when it doesn't rain the streets are typically dry. 

The streets are wet.

Therefore, it is more probable that it rained than if the streets were not wet.

Induction doesn't commit any fallacies. _People_ commit fallacies when they assert a conclusion that goes beyond the scope of the premises.

Ron


----------



## Arch2k (Mar 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Ron_
> Jeff,
> 
> Would you accept what induction is good for:
> ...



What is it good for? 

Is it good for learning truth as defined by webster above?


----------



## Ron (Mar 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Ron_
> ...



Jeff,

You know what it's good for. It's good for keeping you dry on rainy days, for one thing.

Ron


----------



## Myshkin (Mar 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Truth that is not 100% is not truth at all.




Jeff-

If I said your name was Geoff, would I be lying? Would it be completely false, or somewhat true? Your name is spelled differently but it is the same name is it not? Does this mean everything we know has to be 100% true? (i.e. do we have to know everything 100% as it is to know it is true?)

This is probably a silly example to you. But I thought I'd try.



> _Originally posted by Ron_
> Induction doesn't commit any fallacies. _People_ commit fallacies when they assert a conclusion that goes beyond the scope of the premises.
> 
> Ron





[Edited on 3-22-2006 by RAS]


----------



## Arch2k (Mar 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by RAS_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...



See definition of "truth" above. 



[Edited on 3-22-2006 by Jeff_Bartel]


----------



## mgeoffriau (Mar 22, 2006)

John Calvin was a 16th century French Reformer.

Is the above proposition false on the grounds that he was named Jean Chauvin (or Cauvin), and not the Latin derivative?


----------



## Arch2k (Mar 22, 2006)

I'm not sure what you mean Mark and/or how it relates to inductive reasoning. 

Care to elaborate?


----------



## mgeoffriau (Mar 22, 2006)

The previous post asked if a misspelling or alternate spelling of a name constituted an untruth. I am restating the question with a concrete example.


----------



## Civbert (Mar 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by mgeoffriau_
> The previous post asked if a misspelling or alternate spelling of a name constituted an untruth. I am restating the question with a concrete example.



What's the connection to induction?


----------



## Civbert (Mar 22, 2006)

If the conclusion of inductive arguments include a "possible" clause - is it really induction? That's not the standard definition of induction. And really, if you conclusion is in the form of "possible x is y", then the adding a premise defining the conditions for "possible" conclusions would make the argument deductive. 

The form of the conclusion of inductive arguments is usually a universal statement: "All x is y", or "No x is y".



> All observed crows are black.
> therefore
> All crows are black.



If the conclusion were "possibly all crows are black", then a premise defining possible would make the conclusion deductive.

But since the question concerns if induction is a legitimate means of determining truths - then clearly induction can not.

Induction can not tell you if the sun will rise tomorrow for the believer or the un-believer. 

[Edited on 3-22-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Arch2k (Mar 22, 2006)

Good points Anthony.


----------



## mgeoffriau (Mar 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> What's the connection to induction?



As I noted, it was connected to the post above mine.

If you'd like me to summarize that part of the thread -- 

The point was being debated about whether "œprobablistic truth" was truth at all. One poster asked whether a different spelling of a name would make a propositional statement completely untrue. The response was to refer back to the supplied definition of truth, which demanded "100%" to be truth at all.

Therefore I was supplying another concrete example, to see whether or not person with the "100%" standard would be consistant and say that John Calvin (a derivative spelling) was not a 16th century French Reformer.


----------



## rmwilliamsjr (Mar 22, 2006)

*The form of the conclusion of inductive arguments is usually a universal statement: "All x is y", or "No x is y".*

can you refer me to one logic page that makes this claim, please.


----------



## Civbert (Mar 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by rmwilliamsjr_
> *The form of the conclusion of inductive arguments is usually a universal statement: "All x is y", or "No x is y".*
> 
> can you refer me to one logic page that makes this claim, please.



Here's a few to look at. But you should consider the argument I gave and give it some thought. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

Notice that statistical syllogisms are deductive. They calculate statistical probabilities as the conclusion. But the conclusion is a mathematical deduction - the calculated probability is necessarily true given the premises.

http://www.carm.org/atheism/terms.htm

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-inductive/

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Sometimes the the conclusion are written as X is possibly true (which is deductive depending on what "possibly" means), and sometimes the conclusion is an actual calculation of a probability - which is a deductive calculation. And when the form of the conclusion is X is true, then the answer suffers from the induction fallacy of assert a general conclusion from particulars.


----------



## Civbert (Mar 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by mgeoffriau_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Civbert_
> ...



The spelling does not matter. All that matters is if what you predicate of "John Calvin" makes it clear you are speaking of the same JC of the Reformation, and not JC of Chicago.


----------



## mgeoffriau (Mar 22, 2006)

OK. But I'm interested to see if Jeff_Bartel agrees.


----------



## Arch2k (Mar 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by mgeoffriau_
> OK. But I'm interested to see if Jeff_Bartel agrees.



I think so.

The formula is simply a translation:

johannes calvinus = john calvin

The truth is the same, just translated.


----------



## Nomos (Apr 8, 2006)

*Secular responses to induction text/audio*

Since induction is being discussed, I thought I'd recommend a short piece by James Anderson that is fairly insightful to those possibly less familiar with the issue and implications:

James Anderson's Secular Responses to the Problem of Induction
link to text

also available on audion at:
link to audio


enjoy,
Ryan Jankowski
Rincon Mountain Presbyterian - PCA
Tucson, AZ


----------

