It seems to me that induction is really just deduction with hundreds (edit: not necessarily more than one) of hidden premises.
How is coming up with new information possible? There must be sets of rules, built through metaphor and experience that deductively lead to "novel" conclusions.
You may ask, well, how do we come up with the first premise? The answer is that it's probably genetically programmed in. Just like certain rules of language. All animals have premises about the world that they're born with.
One hidden premise in all induction is "the future resembles the past". The only way to justify this premise is with other inductive arguments which use the premise anyway. We could never come up with that premise ourselves -- no one ever questions it. It just "seems" obvious.
Sorry, those ideas were not presented in any sort of clear way... took a bunch of painkillers earlier, lol.
Thoughts?
How is coming up with new information possible? There must be sets of rules, built through metaphor and experience that deductively lead to "novel" conclusions.
You may ask, well, how do we come up with the first premise? The answer is that it's probably genetically programmed in. Just like certain rules of language. All animals have premises about the world that they're born with.
One hidden premise in all induction is "the future resembles the past". The only way to justify this premise is with other inductive arguments which use the premise anyway. We could never come up with that premise ourselves -- no one ever questions it. It just "seems" obvious.
Sorry, those ideas were not presented in any sort of clear way... took a bunch of painkillers earlier, lol.
Thoughts?
Last edited: