Inductive Reasoning?

[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.

 

[Civbert]

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]

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]

Good points Anthony.

 

[mgeoffriau]

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]

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]

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]

Originally posted by mgeoffriau

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.

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]

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

 

[Arch2k]

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]

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