David Hume's argument contra validity of induction

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

You turned the focus from verb tense to adjective: from "are" to "all."

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Brant,

You turned the focus from verb tense to adjective: from "are" to "all."

Michael

Isn't that because I transliterated from the positive to the negative?

--Brant

[william.scherk]

Present tense expresses an unchanging, repeated, or reoccurring action or situation that exists only now. It can also represent a widespread truth. (emphasis added -- WSS)

This is all pretty elementary, no?

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

Did you mean there to be a sneering undertone to your remarks, Michael? I detect one, or infer one, and hope I am mistaken. It adds an ugly note to your efforts to make your interpretation stand, expecially in the context of the dangers of relying upon inductive reasoning for valid generalizations, timeless conclusions.

I believe it is fair to say that the present tense serves to indicate the now, as you state. It also serves to indicate rules of nature, or the way the world is (or as noted above, a widespread truth). Water is wet. Zinc is white. Handsome is as handsome does. Boors are unwelcome at the Queen's table.

It's funny that you would insist upon a narrow rule reading of 'present tense' to clip the wings of your interlocutors. Context is important. Context is always important. Interlocutors are important. Today and in the future.

I hope that you will do a simple Google search on the term dicto simpliciter. This is a type of fallacy. I would explain it by pointing to this phrase: "The present tense refers only to the present."

There are exceptions. Ellen has pointed out an exception. Instead of getting your back up, you might acknowledge the exception.

[Brant Gaede]

You can't use induction "for timeless conclusions." Induction means looking for exceptions. No looking means "timeless." Brain dead, in other words. Deduction is the purpose of induction or nothing goes anywhere. Deduct and verify (induct) until the induct screws over the deduct then one reducts the deduct because of the induct. To deduct you have to deduct from something. All somethings are inductive. (I'm open to counterpoint. Don't be afraid.)

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

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

Ellen,

Yep.

Nope.

And I don't get the joke.

The joke is that Popper said no such thing -- speaking of your denial on the other thread that AR's off-the-cuff remark about concept formation exhibiting the fundamental pattern of induction doesn't mislead O'ists as to what other persons meant by "induction."

Re your grammar problem, MSK...that is just too funny.

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

You can't use induction "for timeless conclusions."

Sorry, Brant. "Timeless conclusions" is just what "induction," traditionally understood, is about: How do you go from X observations that Y to the generalization that ALL observations of Y will be the same? (How do you go from a set of particulars to a universal?)

Ellen

___

Edited August 30, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[Ellen Stuttle]

I believe it is fair to say that the present tense serves to indicate the now, as you state. It also serves to indicate rules of nature, or the way the world is (or as noted above, a widespread truth). Water is wet. Zinc is white. Handsome is as handsome does. Boors are unwelcome at the Queen's table.

E=mc^2.

I'm just about to die laughing over the timeless "are" snafu. I would NEVER have anticipated a quagmire over that one.

Cracking up.

Ellen

Edit: PS: Speaking of the meaning of words, I'd signed on intending to seriously discuss the meaning of "valid" as used in formal logic versus as used in various meanings in common parlance versus as used in O'ist lingo, for instance when O'ists (or the heavily O'ism-influenced) speak of a "valid" concept. I'll wait, however, on that one.

___

Edited August 30, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[BaalChatzaf]

....... How do you go from X observations that Y to the conclusions that ALL observations of Y will be the same? (How do you go from a set of particulars to a universal?)

Ellen

___

With great caution and little hope. The general invalidity of induction has been shown by the so-many inductions that lead to false generalization. It is logically possible that induction may now and again produce a true generalization, but over very extensive or infinite domains it is impossible to demonstrate the truth of the generality by empirical means. Only the falseness of such generalizations can be shown empirically.

Induction is one of those things we have to do if we are to learn survival. But failure now and then is to be expected. The skinned knees and bruised flesh of our youth is clear evidence for that. We learn how to walk and ride a bike inductively (several tries before we get the action). Even then we take spills.

It is our fate as finite beings in a large universe to live with less than certainty, contextual or otherwise. It is not that we cannot know anything (hardly that!). It is that we cannot know with certainty just where and when our most general and extensive rules and laws will break down.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Ellen Stuttle]

To say all swans are white is like saying all humans are not albino. Just ignorant and stupid.

It wasn't "ignorant and stupid" once upon a time. Europeans once upon a time had no knowledge of the existence of black swans in Australia -- nor had they any knowledge of modern scientific thought about principles of genetics.

I'm reminded by your comment of something an instructor in the math department recently said to Larry, re Aristotle's being stupid because he didn't use the method of limits in re answering Zeno's paradoxes. It's like...hello? When did Aristotle live?

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

Bob quotes me:

....... How do you go from X observations that Y to the conclusions that ALL observations of Y will be the same? (How do you go from a set of particulars to a universal?)

For the record: I'd meanwhile edited the quoted post to correct the unmeant plural (and in so doing, I changed the intended "conclusion" to "generalization"). See.

E-

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Did you mean there to be a sneering undertone to your remarks, Michael? I detect one, or infer one, and hope I am mistaken.

William,

You are mistaken. Light exasperation is more accurate.

I get tired of discussing things that make no sense because someone wants to bash another. I have no problem with real reasons. I do have a problem with made up reasons, forced logic, and the competitive approach to rhetoric.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The joke is that Popper said no such thing...

Ellen,

Popper didn't use those words, but he was blasting induction in the essay I read and the conclusions I mentioned are the only ones you can reach and remain logically consistent with his objections.

Look at it from another example of the same reasoning method. Person A says you can't drive anywhere because driving isn't valid. Then Person B says, so-and-so claims you can't drive to New York. Then he is challenged because Person A did not mention New York in his original statement. "Nowhere did Person A say you can't drive to New York!"

The fact that "anywhere" applies to "New York" and "isn't valid" applies to driving gets brushed aside in the quibbling.

I am not interested in pursuing that form of reasoning. It's nothing but semantics and I am more interested in the ideas.

Re your grammar problem, MSK...that is just too funny.

Ditto for your twisting the rules of grammar out of shape and one-liner put-downs where arguments should be.

We're just a barrel of laughs, aren't we?

Michael

[william.scherk]

Did you mean there to be a sneering undertone to your remarks, Michael? I detect one, or infer one, and hope I am mistaken.

You are mistaken. Light exasperation is more accurate.

I get tired of discussing things that make no sense because someone wants to bash another. I have no problem with real reasons. I do have a problem with made up reasons, forced logic, and the competitive approach to rhetoric.

Fair enough. Thanks for clearing that up. I still have a couple of questions that pertain to your comments on 'elementary grammar.' I am assuming you read up on dicto simpliciter . . . and that you grant my, Ellen's and Roger's point that in some cases, the present tense of to be denotes a "state of nature."

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

I will even go further and unpack this thing as best I can.

My intent is not to show off any learning or say this person or that person was wrong or unclear or whatever, but to examine ideas. I always kick myself after I get entangled in one of these exchanges that smells strongly of oneupmanship, but there it is. Forum life.

On the issue of the present tense of "to be" meaning "state of nature," depending on the context, I suppose, it could mean that. But here is my beef. ALL things can denote "state of nature" since "state of nature" (or an imagined state of nature) is a more fundamental concept on which all others are based.

My big toe is a state of nature. To kill is a state of nature. Puce is a state of nature.

Let's look at the concept before looking at the grammar. A conceptual thinker would never make a metaphysical statement about the present that excluded time simply because it is like saying the bottom of the mountain with no mountain existing. Time is made up of aspects: past, present, future and eternity. It is also entangled with space. We only experience directly a very small slice of this and the rest is projected. So metaphysically it is nonsense to talk about the present as not having a future. The present is part of time, not the other way around. Time embodies both present and future and the other two. I even mentioned once before the paradox of not being able to consciously experience the present since the moment that awareness registers the present, it is already the past.

When we get to grammar, I am not what you could call a grammar freak. I find formal grammar boring as all get out and I have to prop my eyes open with toothpicks every time I need to look something up. But I do look things up when I need to.

Even years ago when I heard the old joke about a man going out for supper and asking a taxi driver where to get scrod and the driver responding that he had heard that question a millions times before but never in the third-person pluperfect indicative, I looked it up and discovered it was only a spoof, not real grammar.

So when I was talking above (too hastily, I admit) about the present not having a future, I was talking specifically about a grammatical place on the timeline, not about some weird metaphysical notion of the present existing without time or outside of time (which includes the full shebang).

I understand when Ellen claimed that "are" had a "timeless nature," she was basically talking about eternity or at least time-space absoluteness (XXXXX is/was/will be such-and-such so long as it exists), but I do not get that from the verb tense alone. I may get it from the adjective "all," I may get it from the basic meaning of the verb, but not the verb tense, which indicates a point on (or section of) the timeline.

About "state of nature." The verb "to be" already indicates a state of nature in all its tenses, past, present and future (and eternal). "To exist." That's the meaning of "to be."

The meaning of the verb is more fundamental than the verb's tense. (And verb tense was what Ellen was talking about.) The whole concept does not replace a part of it, the verb tense. That doesn't make any sense. "Verb tense" is a time-focused facet of the verb-concept, not something apart from it.

A conceptual thinker always places the more fundamental concept underneath the parts built on it and does not try to project something like a verb tense as outside of time (or time's essential nature). That's called a stolen concept in Objectivism. But he does try to be specific according to whatever qualification he is focusing on.

To my understanding, the word "are" means something plural in a state of nature now. Not before. Not after. Not forever. Now.

"State of nature" as a concept obviously includes time, so it has a past, present and future (and possibly forever), but the verb tense does not. The verb tense identifies only part of the story.

That's why it is called the "present tense," not the "timeless tense," or the "eternal tense."

I hope that makes my thinking a bit clearer.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Pursuing the issue of Popper's meaning of "induction," Michael, I'll first track the history of your latest reply.

You wrote:

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'm leaving out the part about "all swans are [by definition] swans," since in a subsequent post you said that you were joking about that part.)

I asked:

Can you name "an induction disparager" who questions that "some swans are white" [...]?

;-)

"[That's] easy," you answered -- here. "Popper."

In response to my saying -- here -- that:

"Popper said no such thing," you reply:

Popper didn't use those words, but he was blasting induction in the essay I read and the conclusions I mentioned are the only ones you can reach and remain logically consistent with his objections.

I don't know what essay you read. However, judging from my general understanding of Popper's views, I'd bet that what he was arguing is that induction isn't a valid form of reasoning. I'd also bet that what he meant by "induction" in the context was what he's meant in everything of his I've read, which is the typical meaning that's used when philosophers talk about "the problem of induction."

I.e., I'd bet that what Popper meant by "induction" in whatever you read was: extrapolating from a set of non-contradictory observations "that X" to an assertion that other observations which haven't been made will also show "that X." (Or another way of saying it: arguing from examples which have been observed to a claim of certainty about examples of the same type which haven't been observed.)

There is nothing in this meaning of "induction" which would lead to questioning that "some swans are white." "Some swans are white" isn't an induction in the meaning Popper uses. It might be an "induction" in the meaning you use, but it isn't in Popper's meaning. It's just a factual statement about particular observations which have been made.

Thus you're misunderstanding Popper by importing your meaning into what he wrote and therefore misreading what he was talking about.

Ellen

___

Edited August 31, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

We have been over all this before (especially in discussing "The Problem of Induction"). I suggest you consult the older posts rather than simply making an unfounded claim about my understanding.

I do understand. I have written about it. I see parallels between Popper and Rand on a conceptual level, but both use different jargon. I also see some problems with Popper's terminology. You have disagreed with this. So we disagree.

I don't feel like repeating.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

We have been over all this before (especially in discussing "The Problem of Induction").

Where have you made the claim before that Popper would have classified a statement such as "Some swans are white" as being an induction?

I had no recollection of your having made that claim before.

So...I did a search of my own posts using the search terms (without the quote marks) "Popper induction." I found three and a half screens, many of the posts long ones. I've spent about the last hour and a half reading through the whole set. Nowhere in those posts do I find any indication of your and my (or of anyone else's and my) discussing this particular point.

The large majority of the disputing between you and me re Popper pertains to Popper's essay on Two Kinds of Definition. Much of that disputing occurred on a thread titled " Two Kinds of "Induction": [...]," but it doesn't pertain to induction. It pertains to whether or not Rand's views on definitions classify as what Popper calls "essentialist."

The few posts I find (toward the bottom of the 3rd screen of my own posts which came up) in which you and I tangled on Popper's meaning of the term "induction" were on the "Scorecard" thread. I don't find in any of those a quote from you in which you claim that Popper would have classified a statement such as "Some swans are white" as being an induction.

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

Michael, I found a thread in which you talk extensively about swans. It's in the Ethics forum, a thread called "Do We Own Ourselves?" -- see.

I've only had time to skim the thread, and haven't even figured out yet how the issue of swans came up on a thread with that title! ;-)

There aren't any posts by me on the thread. It was started a couple days after my sister-in-law died following her long bout with cancer and it ended, except for four straggler posts from August, only about a week after Larry and I returned home from the memorial service in Florida (we were gone for more than a week). I'm not sure if I even saw that thread before.

On a quick skim, it seems to be informative about your views on "induction" -- and derivatively on why you're talking at cross-purposes with others of us.

I'll try to get around to reading the whole thread later.

Ellen

___

Edited August 31, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Where have you made the claim before that Popper would have classified a statement such as "Some swans are white" as being an induction?

I had no recollection of your having made that claim before.

Ellen,

You see, this is why I don't like competitive discussion hairsplitting over trivia and semantics.

Your original question was:

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

I answered "Popper."

Then you were off on some kind of crusade to prove God knows what, but your first question and my answer have nothing to do with where you ended up. The reason you have no recollection is because it didn't happen.

I don't have time for this. I am interested in induction, etc., but not in wasting a lot of time doing this "I said, you said" stuff. Please feel free to make other unfounded allegations and insinuations, but don't interpret my silence as agreeing or not being able to answer. I just don't hold any value for this kind of discussion.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

Our posts crossed.

If you have anything of value to say, like treating the swans thing as an example of process, I'm interested. If the point is just to say so-and-so didn't use the word "swan" in discussing the process, I am not so interested. My interest in swans in this discussion is very little. May they have long and happy lives and multiply and be fruitful. Swans work as an example, but so do other things. I am really interested in the process of induction.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Where have you made the claim before that Popper would have classified a statement such as "Some swans are white" as being an induction?

I had no recollection of your having made that claim before.

Ellen,

You see, this is why I don't like competitive discussion hairsplitting over trivia and semantics.

Your original question was:

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

I answered "Popper."

Then you were off on some kind of crusade to prove God knows what, but your first question and my answer have nothing to do with where you ended up. The reason you have no recollection is because it didn't happen.

I don't follow that at all. You said that Popper "questions that 'some swans are white.'" On further questioning, you claimed that Popper would classify such a statement as "Some swans are white" as being an induction. Are you now saying that, no, you wouldn't make that claim? If so, I don't know what viewpoint it is you were attributing to Popper in your original statement.

Ellen

___

[Brant Gaede]

I just had an epiphany!

All swans are black or white!

--Brant

Edited August 31, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On further questioning, you claimed that Popper would classify such a statement as "Some swans are white" as being an induction.

Ellen,

(sigh)

Could you please give me a quote where I allegedly claimed that? Either you misunderstood something I wrote or I was unclear. So please drag the quote out and I will clarify my meaning.

Michael

[Mindy Newton]

I just had an epiphany!

All swans are black or white!

--Brant

That's a pip of an epiphany, Brant.

--Mindy

[Ellen Stuttle]

On further questioning, you claimed that Popper would classify such a statement as "Some swans are white" as being an induction.

Ellen,

(sigh)

Could you please give me a quote where I allegedly claimed that? Either you misunderstood something I wrote or I was unclear. So please drag the quote out and I will clarify my meaning.

Here again is the sequence as laid out in my post #40. The "latest reply" referred to is your post #37.

I'll ADD two further paragraphs from your post #37, in which you made an analogy to what you called "another example of the same reasoning method."

Pursuing the issue of Popper's meaning of "induction," Michael, I'll first track the history of your latest reply.

You wrote:

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'm leaving out the part about "all swans are [by definition] swans," since in a subsequent post you said that you were joking about that part.)

I asked:

Can you name "an induction disparager" who questions that "some swans are white" [...]?

;-)

"[That's] easy," you answered -- here. "Popper."

In response to my saying -- here -- that:

"Popper said no such thing," you reply:

Popper didn't use those words, but he was blasting induction in the essay I read and the conclusions I mentioned are the only ones you can reach and remain logically consistent with his objections.

[ADDITIONAL QUOTE]

Look at it from another example of the same reasoning method. Person A says you can't drive anywhere because driving isn't valid. Then Person B says, so-and-so claims you can't drive to New York. Then he is challenged because Person A did not mention New York in his original statement. "Nowhere did Person A say you can't drive to New York!"

The fact that "anywhere" applies to "New York" and "isn't valid" applies to driving gets brushed aside in the quibbling.

I don't know what essay you read. However, judging from my general understanding of Popper's views, I'd bet that what he was arguing is that induction isn't a valid form of reasoning. I'd also bet that what he meant by "induction" in the context was what he's meant in everything of his I've read, which is the typical meaning that's used when philosophers talk about "the problem of induction."

I.e., I'd bet that what Popper meant by "induction" in whatever you read was: extrapolating from a set of non-contradictory observations "that X" to an assertion that other observations which haven't been made will also show "that X." (Or another way of saying it: arguing from examples which have been observed to a claim of certainty about examples of the same type which haven't been observed.)

There is nothing in this meaning of "induction" which would lead to questioning that "some swans are white." "Some swans are white" isn't an induction in the meaning Popper uses. It might be an "induction" in the meaning you use, but it isn't in Popper's meaning. It's just a factual statement about particular observations which have been made.

Thus you're misunderstanding Popper by importing your meaning into what he wrote and therefore misreading what he was talking about.

Ellen

___

If you weren't claiming that Popper would classify such a statement as "Some swans are white" as being an induction, I'm at a loss to figure out what you were claiming.

However, to expedite matters, I'll ask two direct questions, each of which can be answered with a simple affirmative or negative:

(1) Do you or do you not classify "Some swans are white" as an induction?

(2) Do you or do you not believe that Popper would have classified "Some swans are white" as an induction?

Ellen

___

Edited September 1, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle