(Bridget)Faith presupposes one cannot be wrong. Reasonable assumptions presuppose that possibility of being wrong. Therefore, faith is not the predication of any philosophy that has assumptions.
So, Nick, stop shifting definitions or I'll hit you with my n00b stick. :-P
(Nick)No Bridget, you are twisting definitions by adding your own little qualifications to them. Some people do question matters of faith or distinguish between faith and knowledge. For example, they say they cannot know that God exists, so they have faith. Other people do not question assumptions, thinking they are knowledge, as when a bigot assumes people of certain races are lazy or stupid. In some contexts, leaps of faith and assumptions are different ways of saying the same thing. One might also use the word “belief” or “supposition.”
Let's say Jack, an Objectivist, has an old car and, lately, he has been hearing squeaking noises when he uses the breaks. However, he is "confident" that the breaks are okay based on the inductive reasoning that they are still working, when he drives on flat surfaces and doesn't go very fast before he breaks. George, a Neo-Objectivist, suggests that Jack get his breaks checked, but Jack thinks Neo-Objectivists are not as rational as Objectivists, so loans his car to another friend who dies when the breaks fail on a hill and the car crashes. Was this Jack's fault? Did he have too much "confidence"?
(Bridget)That's a faulty argument because you're presupposing one would not check the brakes to be sure. If you hear squeaking, it means the brakes are about flat pass the regulation/standard level of metal. Your logic also fails because there are clear signs of brake failure or weakness by examing the brake wheel, to which a pad presses against, for any grooves or odd line-like blemishes. Btw, how do I know this, Nick? I was a CDL licensed bus driver, so I know how disc brakes have to work, lines, pumps, and all. It's state regulation that I must know as much as the mechanic knows about a vehicle I operate. QED again Nick.
(Nick)Of course the man was wrong because he was relying on inductive reasoning which was inconclusive. He didn’t check the other things. If he would have used more than the one inductive argument, then he may have found a problem.
Also, in your case, suspending all critique, if that were to happen that is misguided confidence thusly, it is faith and not based on reason, nor is it inductive because inductive reasoning requires as many variables to be isolated before agreeing within a margin of error that it is so. So, if you want to pull more bulls**t out of your arse on what induction entails, be my guest, but remember, you are talking to a science major, and you will be corrected every time by your claims about induction. Also, your example is what is called NAIVE INDUCTION, or faulty induction, where variables in the line of causation have not been isolated. It's also the source of common sense, folk medicine, folk psychology, and other schema driven propositions.
(Bridget)No, the man used inductive reasoning, and it was not enough. If there is a margin of error, there is still a leap of faith. That is what “margin of error” means.
Again, you lose, good day sir.
I would also add what philosophy a person has is not the basis for any argument with regard to inductive propositions. Inductive propositions must be handled by what variables are accounted for in it. If Jack does not prove he has isolated all known, and possibly unknown, variables then his argument is suspect. If George does not ask if any variables have been isolated, then his argument is equally suspect, but on the basis that he has no reasonable doubt within bounds of a margin of error.
(Nick)Inductive arguments are, by their nature, inconclusive. There is room for suspicion. That’s where the inductive leap takes place. If a hundred thousand abadabs are bugaboos but hundred thousand and one of them exist, then there is a leap of faith to the conclusion that all abadabs are bugaboos.
(Bridget)Thusly, the plead to differing philosophies in such arguments is pointless, induction is a universal method outside of any particular set of philosophies. Essentially, I call it the 'meta'-philosophy of all of them.
(Nick)I don’t care about different philosophies. I just used them to identify two different people in my example. You are wasting effort by making a big deal out of this.
(Bridget)Sir, define faith. Faith is the belief in things not see [or perceived], but hoped for. That's the Biblical definition and I stand by it as the most accurate.
(Nick)Yes, faith can mean “belief in things not seen,” and, in inductive arguments, not everything is seen. There are general conclusions based on a sampling of the evidence, not all of it.
(Bridget)Take the car argument again.
X hears the brakes squeeling, a sure sign that the break pads are down to bare steel or an oil/brake fluid leak that would weaken the brakes response for anyone atleast accustomed to driving theirs to such condition, and alerts Y to the problem. Y says it's nothing to worry about because he thinks X is irrational for arbitrary reasons. Y's brakes give out and he does wind up in a wreck.
(Nick)If Y only goes on the authority of X, it is an argument from authority. Y would have to have faith in X’s authority.
(Bridget)I think that's the easiest way to some it up. Now, Y never ever isolated the source of the noise not coming from the brake pads. X was right to point out the issue because it's a verified fact that such issues can be a problem. That means, X was not in the wrong and was inductively right, and Y was wrong because he never isolated the claim aka falsified it beyond the obvious facts which were apparent. That means, when an inductive statement is proven by apparent fact and that the opposing viewpoint/side never isolates that fact apart from the causal chain(s) asserted by the proposing viewpoint/side, then it follows that the initial statement is true by the facts given. If the opposing side isolates the given fact apart from the proposed causal chain, then it is wrong. That is how inductive reasoning operates, Nick, and you seem to be hiding from it. There is no faith in inductive reasoning, it's all explanations of REAL PHENOMENA NOT THINGS UNSEEN OR HOPED FOR. Thusly, your claim is false categorically that inductive reasoning entails faith.
(Nick)No, you are adding deductive arguments to the example. You are adding the premise that noise from break pads is a verified sign of a problem. You are using more than one rational in your adaptation of the example. If we just keep the argument liner, then there is still a leap of faith, a conclusion about the whole based on a sampling. There is evidence not seen in most inductive arguments.
(Bridget)Inductive reasoning does entail some assumptions, but that is not the same as faith, because assumptions are often made to eliminate alternatives.
(Nick)Nope, assumptions are often used interchangeably the leaps of faith. Yes, I know the hypothesis can be tested. If the results are not conclusive, the conclusions are still assumptions, just more certain than before.
(Bridget) It's exactly what is done with genetic algorithms in computer science, it exhausts all the assumed, or possible, variables until either it hits upon the right one giving the programmer the solution or it does not. If you hit upon a sufficient number of correct variables via assumptions, then you know more than you did not. That is why Hume's Inductive Fallacy is in fact a fallacy as well, it assumes that any degree of uncertainty is equivocal to total uncertainty. And that does not work in the real world, where people make inductive statements via assumptions everyday. From Joe the mechanic trying to figure out what's wrong with your car to Ted the Physicist trying to explain why a certain particle mass keeps showing up in the data collection on an linear accelerator. Both must take steps to decrease uncertainty by making assumptions, especially ones that they both can equally dispose of when proven to be invalid/unsound.
(Nick)Yes, and very often people come up with workable solutions to problems. Still, they can be wrong. Pragmatism only has the appearance of truth. A patient can get better by taking placebos and think there is a cause and effect relationship between his or her recovery and the placebo, but this is only faith, not truth. If it can be verified that all abadabs are bugaboos and Joe the mechanic or Ted the physicist finds an abadab, then Joe or Ted found a bugaboo. However, this is a deductive argument, not an inductive argument. And, sometimes, inductive leaps can be right. It is possible that they can be wrong. It is more likely than not that if I buy a lottery ticket, I will not win, according to inductive probabilities. It is possible, however, that I will win.
(Bridget)What I can't understand is why you think otherwise. You think feelings come into the equation when they don't. I would love to see a more in-depth post by you that isn't half-baked garbage. You even got a friend of mine, who's an MS in math and wanting to study philosophy all wondering where you get these ideas, and why you can't set down your definitions in stone! And he hasn't written you off, he's far more open to ideas than me. So, please, make a case that isn't on such weak grounds before you totally lose all credibility with me.
(Nick)You are associating feelings and wishful thinking with faith. I’m not. I’m using t as some people use the word “assumption.” I think there are degrees of certainty and uncertainty and degrees of faith. Faith is not always reserved for religious discussions. Making assumptions based on inductive reasoning is not pure, blind faith, but it is a leap of faith.
Bis bald,
Nick
(Edited by Mr. Nicholas Neal Otani on 7/28, 11:23pm)
|
