|
|
|
|
|
|
#1 (permalink) |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Type: ESFJ
Posts: 927
![]() |
Take the following inductive inference.
a is y, b is y, c is y, d is y |- every x is yNow define a new predicate z as follows: if x is equal to a, b, c, or d, and x is y, then x is z, but if x is not equal to a, b, c, or d, and x is y, then x is not-z. Note the equivalence. a is y, b is y, c is y, d is y = a is z, b is z, c is z, d is zEquivalence means that either can be substituted for the other. Now take the following inductive inference. a is z, b is z, c is z, d is z |- every x is zSubstitute a is y, b is y, c is y, d is y |- every x is zTherefore, from the same premises both 'every x is y' and 'every x is z' can be induced, but both also contradict each other. Moreover, both y and z can be defined in terms of one another. For example, take the induction. a is z, b is z, c is z, d is z |- every x is zNow define y as follows: if x is equal to a, b, c, or d, and x is z, then x is y, but if x is not equal to a, b, c, or d, and x is z, then x is not-y. The equivalence holds as before. a is z, b is z, c is z, d is z = a is y, b is y, c is y, d is yAnd therefore, so does the substitution. a is y, b is y, c is y, d is y |- every x is ySubstitute a is z, b is z, c is z, d is z |- every x is ySince the new predicate can be defined however we want, the inductive content, that is, everything entailed by everything which can be induced, must contain everything which does not contradict the premises, that is, their deductive content. In consequence, inductive inference is not a kind of reasoning or logic, because it fails to divide the set of possible inferences over and above that which is achieved deductively. Any thoughts?
__________________
"Every man, wherever he goes, is encompassed by a cloud of comforting convictions, which move with him like flies on a summer day." - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 (permalink) | |
|
Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Type: INTP
Posts: 35
![]() |
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 (permalink) |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Type: ESFJ
Posts: 927
![]() |
The only restriction on what can be inductively inferred is that its negation cannot be deductively inferred from the premises. In other words, so long as the premises do not imply that the conclusion is false, everything else can be induced.
__________________
"Every man, wherever he goes, is encompassed by a cloud of comforting convictions, which move with him like flies on a summer day." - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Induction and Deduction | Evan | Philosophy and Spirituality | 128 | 10-11-2008 10:33 AM |
| Someone Please Explain Mathematical Induction | Orangey | Academics and Careers | 8 | 09-28-2008 11:51 PM |
| A Note on the Problem of Induction | reason | Philosophy and Spirituality | 3 | 09-19-2007 01:47 PM |
| Problem of Problematicality | reason | Philosophy and Spirituality | 3 | 08-23-2007 10:36 PM |