David Hume's argument contra validity of induction

[BaalChatzaf]

Here is a summary of Hume's argument stated in modern english and summarized. If you want to read his entire argument look at -Treatise of Human Nature: Book I-.

Here is the summary:

http://www.princeton.edu/~grosen/puc/phi203/induction.html

Enjoy.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

Very interesting but I have to wonder why people waste their time with analysis like this. Hell, animals exhibit "inductive inference" when they go to their hunting grounds, I believe it's called learning. Forming theories based on what you have learned is simply an attempt to preserve what you have learned so that it can benefit future generations.

[BaalChatzaf]

Very interesting but I have to wonder why people waste their time with analysis like this. Hell, animals exhibit "inductive inference" when they go to their hunting grounds, I believe it's called learning. Forming theories based on what you have learned is simply an attempt to preserve what you have learned so that it can benefit future generations.

The question is not that there is or is not inductive modes of thought. The question is the general validity of inductive inference. Inductive inference is not generally valid.

You are quite right to link induction with learning. Learning is largely an inductive exercise. And you can be sure it is not a generally valid mode because we learning a lot from our errors. Learning is induction put into practice. It is the only way we have to crank out general hypotheses from particular assertions. Sometimes the hypotheses we crank out are wrong.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

I don't know what 'valid' means I guess. If you do something and it works in my mind it's valid. I guess some people are obsessed with certainty and can't get by without it.

[merjet]

The reasonable solution to the "problem of induction" is to recognize induction's limits. It is not to declare that induction isn't valid (in the way deduction is). A falsification rarely makes a fatality; only a treatable wound. Bland Blanshard got it about right in Reason and Analysis, p. 228. He said that you cannot falsify, for example, the proposition that some swans are white. As well, one counter instance does not falsify the proposition that most swans are white. Indeed, the counter-example gives an opportunity to make the generalization more exact. The importance of Hume and Popper are exaggerated and should be deflated.

[tjohnson]

That makes a lot of sense. It's also has a lot to do with my signature below.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The reasonable solution to the "problem of induction" is to recognize induction's limits. It is not to declare that induction isn't valid (in the way deduction is). A falsification rarely makes a fatality; only a treatable wound. Bland Blanshard got it about right in Reason and Analysis, p. 228. He said that you cannot falsify, for example, the proposition that some swans are white. As well, one counter instance does not falsify the proposition that most swans are white. Indeed, the counter-example gives an opportunity to make the generalization more exact. The importance of Hume and Popper are exaggerated and should be deflated.

Merlin,

I agree with this except for one thing. My disagreement is more about style than substance, but there is a subliminal load that bothers me.

The idea of recognizing induction's so-called limits is nothing more than recognizing its nature. One would not say that not expecting a train to fly is recognizing a train's limits, although that would be technically correct. But one would never expect a train to fly in the first place.

The only reason this statement of yours does not sound weird is because there has been a weird competition set up by God knows who down the ages, probably to prove that science is superior to philosophy or some other such issue of vanity.

Imagine if a bunch of otherwise intelligent people started writing long works explaining that trains were not valid because they cannot fly. That's what I see has happened with induction. Induction was never made to deduce anything.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Michael, the history of "the problem of induction" goes back to Aristotle, who thought that one could form incontestable premises from which to reach guaranteed-true conclusions. Hume's realization that you can't arrive at incontestable universalizable inductive generalizations caused him bouts of depression. He was upset by his own reasoning, far from trying to prove any superiority. His reasoning presented an enormous crisis, almost from the start of the scientific era, for the validity of science. (There's a famous quote by Russell which well describes the gulf which seemed to open under the foundations of science. Maybe someone else has the quote immediately to hand; I haven't time at the moment to look for it.) Kant was attempting to salvage the situation with his critiques. He didn't succeed at the salvage job, with multiple philosophic woes to follow. In very brief whirlwind synopsis, that's the background for Popper's attempt to show that we don't require induction to be valid to do quite well at science.

Merlin might be right about the over-rating of the problem, and about "the reasonable solution." But if there was any "vanity" trip involved, I'd say it was the widespread desire for certainty, the feeling of threat at having one's knowledge of the world be ineluctably tentative.

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

I'm perfectly happy with "some swans are white" for my certainty instead of "all swans are white." I will have to insist on "all swans are swans," though.

I also know that this issue, from what I have read both here in discussions and in a few passages from works by major philosophers, has an extremely high competitive load. There is a scramble to prove this person or that right or wrong (or "muddled"). Tell an induction disparager that you are happy with the certainty that "some swans are white" and he will accuse you of begging the question or some other yada yada yada.

I like your visual of great philosophers agonizing over truth, but what I have read so far is not so noble.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen,

[....] I will have to insist on "all swans are swans," though.

[....] Tell an induction disparager that you are happy with the certainty that "some swans are white" and he will accuse you of begging the question or some other yada yada yada. [....]

Can you name "an induction disparager" who questions that "some swans are white" or that "all swans are [by definition] swans"?

;-)

Ellen

___

Edited August 28, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[Brant Gaede]

Ellen,

[....] I will have to insist on "all swans are swans," though.

[....] Tell an induction disparager that you are happy with the certainty that "some swans are white" and he will accuse you of begging the question or some other yada yada yada. [....]

Can you name "an induction disparager" who questions that "some swans are white" or that "all swans are [by definition] swans"?

;-)

Ellen

I surely do wish someone would/could explain the importance of swans this or swans that. Why? Because both statements are true. This or that, that or this. After all, the damn swans are swans.

--Brant

Edited August 28, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[Ellen Stuttle]

The reasonable solution to the "problem of induction" is to recognize induction's limits. It is not to declare that induction isn't valid (in the way deduction is). A falsification rarely makes a fatality; only a treatable wound. [brand] Blanshard got it about right in Reason and Analysis, p. 228. He said that you cannot falsify, for example, the proposition that some swans are white. As well, one counter instance does not falsify the proposition that most swans are white. Indeed, the counter-example gives an opportunity to make the generalization more exact. The importance of Hume and Popper are exaggerated and should be deflated.

To be safe with exactitude, you'd have to include a time qualifier: Most swans thus far reported as having been observed have been white. The timeless "are" could, however, turn out to be wrong in the future if, for instance, there were a mutation that took hold such that gray became the prevailing swan color.

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Can you name "an induction disparager" who questions that "some swans are white" or that "all swans are [by definition] swans"?

Ellen,

The first is easy. Popper. The second was me being a smart-ass, so there is no need.

To be safe with exactitude, you'd have to include a time qualifier: Most swans thus far reported as having been observed have been white. The timeless "are" could, however, turn out to be wrong in the future if, for instance, there were a mutation that took hold such that gray became the prevailing swan color.

Now this I can agree with (mostly). It's high time that time be included. I don't understand "are" to be timeless, however. I understand it to be the present tense in the English language. I learned that in grade school.

Michael

[Daniel Barnes]

Bland Blanshard got it about right in Reason and Analysis, p. 228. He said that you cannot falsify, for example, the proposition that some swans are white. As well, one counter instance does not falsify the proposition that most swans are white. Indeed, the counter-example gives an opportunity to make the generalization more exact. The importance of Hume and Popper are exaggerated and should be deflated.

In fact it is this very bland reply that should be deflated...;-)

Brand B simply missed the point. Recall that Popper was writing primarily about Hume's impact on science, the distinctive characteristic of which he regarded as the search for universal laws.

What is distinctively scientific - or even interesting - about the proposition "Some swans are white"?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What is distinctively scientific - or even interesting - about the proposition "Some swans are white"?

Daniel,

Plenty, if you are interested in swans.

Michael

[merjet]

Brand B simply missed the point. Recall that Popper was writing primarily about Hume's impact on science, the distinctive characteristic of which he regarded as the search for universal laws.

Brand B got the point very well, and Hume dropped his philosophy the minute he was faced with putting it into practice.

What is distinctively scientific - or even interesting - about the proposition "Some swans are white"?

That is simply an example to demonstrate a principle. Do you think people should have no interest in the following?

- Some people get cancer.

- Some people get heart disease.

- These diseases can some times be successfully treated.

- Some foods are poisonous.

[Daniel Barnes]

That is simply an example to demonstrate a principle. Do you think people should have no interest in the following?

- Some people get cancer.

- Some people get heart disease.

- These diseases can some times be successfully treated.

- Some foods are poisonous.

Well, you can define science any way you like, Merlin. I would have thought that "some people get cancer" is an observation that might be a spur to try to discover the universal laws that govern the disease, such as "All people that eat X will get cancer." That, to Popper, is the aim of science - even if we know in advance we might never achieve that aim with any finality. If you want to argue differently, ie that science should aim at less demanding statements like "Some people that eat X will get cancer, and some won't" that is up to you.

Edited August 29, 2008 by Daniel Barnes

[merjet]

Daniel,

Is the search for the causes, prevention, and cures for said diseases scientific enough for you?

[Daniel Barnes]

Daniel,

Is the search for the causes, prevention, and cures for said diseases scientific enough for you?

Of course. This is just another way of saying the same thing, that we are after the universal laws that govern the above.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Can you name "an induction disparager" who questions that "some swans are white" or that "all swans are [by definition] swans"?

Ellen,

The first is easy. Popper. The second was me being a smart-ass, so there is no need.

Is your answer "Popper" meant seriously? Or are you joking again?

To be safe with exactitude, you'd have to include a time qualifier: Most swans thus far reported as having been observed have been white. The timeless "are" could, however, turn out to be wrong in the future if, for instance, there were a mutation that took hold such that gray became the prevailing swan color.

Now this I can agree with (mostly). It's high time that time be included. I don't understand "are" to be timeless, however. I understand it to be the present tense in the English language. I learned that in grade school.

Michael

The "are" in such formulations as "All swans are white" or "All men are mortal" isn't meant as applying just to all the swans or all the men existing at this moment.

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

To be safe with exactitude, you'd have to include a time qualifier: Most swans thus far reported as having been observed have been white. The timeless "are" could, however, turn out to be wrong in the future if, for instance, there were a mutation that took hold such that gray became the prevailing swan color.

Ellen

___

Awhile after I posted the above, I thought that if one did play strictly safe with exactitude, the statement would become merely a summary statement of observations to date and not an induction.

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Is your answer "Popper" meant seriously? Or are you joking again?

Ellen,

Yep.

Nope.

And I don't get the joke.

The "are" in such formulations as "All swans are white" or "All men are mortal" isn't meant as applying just to all the swans or all the men existing at this moment.

I understand it to mean all men who have existed up to this point and all men (or swans or whatever) who now exist (more specifically, "known to exist" is the meaning of "exist" in this context). I have never, even in grade school, thought this meant all men who would ever exist and prohibit an exception, nor do I know anyone who thinks that way, not even the most boneheaded Randroid. In fact, I have never thought that the present tense meant the future. Ever. I have always thought it meant the present.

I will admit that there is an implicit presumption for the future such as, "so long as men exist, they will most likely be mortal," or "so long as men exist within the present state of understanding of mortality, they will be mortal," but it's always qualified by something other than the noun, verb tense and adjective. That presumption projects the present context into the future and slaps a big honking qualified "if such is the case" on it.

You can argue this if you like, but I prefer to stick to elementary grammar.

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

Is your answer "Popper" meant seriously? Or are you joking again?

Ellen,

Yep.

Nope.

And I don't get the joke.

The "are" in such formulations as "All swans are white" or "All men are mortal" isn't meant as applying just to all the swans or all the men existing at this moment.

I understand it to mean all men who have existed up to this point and all men (or swans or whatever) who now exist (more specifically, "known to exist" is the meaning of "exist" in this context). I have never, even in grade school, thought this meant all men who would ever exist and prohibit an exception, nor do I know anyone who thinks that way, not even the most boneheaded Randroid. In fact, I have never thought that the present tense meant the future. Ever. I have always thought it meant the present.

I will admit that there is an implicit presumption for the future such as, "so long as men exist, they will most likely be mortal," or "so long as men exist within the present state of understanding of mortality, they will be mortal," but it's always qualified by something other than the noun, verb tense and adjective. That presumption projects the present context into the future and slaps a big honking qualified "if such is the case" on it.

You can argue this if you like, but I prefer to stick to elementary grammar.

Michael

If you want to make "are" strictly present tense, and not refer to the future, then elementary grammar (and logic!) would dictate that, in regard to all the men who have existed up to this point, that you say "have been" or "were," not "are." All the men who existed in the past were mortal. Or, all the men who existed up to this point have been mortal. Nor "are."

I prefer to stick to elementary grammar, too. But I think we should do it consistently.

REB

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Roger,

Ellen's point is that the present tense insinuates a condition for the future in the form of an implicit proposition.

"All swans are white"

translates to

"No swans can ever be anything but white."

And this can be falsified by one black swan, thus it is proven that induction is invalid or Rand was muddled in her thinking or whatever.

But those are not the same meanings. "Are" is not timeless as she claimed.

I learned that the future tense includes "will."

"All swans will be white" is vastly different than

"All swans are white."

Your present perfect example, "all swans have been white," does not change the meaning of present tense. See here for example (from an super-quick Google search):

Present tense expresses an unchanging, repeated, or reoccurring action or situation that exists only now. It can also represent a widespread truth.

This is all pretty elementary, no?

Only on an Objectivist forum is it possible to debate whether the present tense is timeless or not.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

"All swans are white" simply means a black bird that can mate with a white bird that is a swan and produce reproductive oddspring is not a swan. The proof of the proposition is in the proposition, but empirically the proposition is false. Either all swans are white or they are not. Color does not define "swan," only describes, partially, almost all of them. To say all swans are white is like saying all humans are not albino. Just ignorant and stupid.

--Brant