[an error occurred while processing this directive]
About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Friday, July 12 - 1:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Popper came up with many refutations of induction. That made it hard to come up with a new one. But I managed it:

Deutsch, Popper, and Feynman aren't inductivists. I could add more people to this list, like me. So here we see a clear pattern of people not being inductivists. There's a bunch of data points with a certain thing in common (a person not being inductivist). Let's apply induction to this pattern. So we extrapolate the general trend: induction leads us to conclude against induction. Oh no, a contradiction! I guess we'll have to throw out induction.

Q&A:

Q: Your data set is incomplete.
A: All data sets are incomplete.

Q: Your data set isn't random.
A: No data sets are entirely random.

Q: I have an explanation of why your method of selecting data points leads to a misleading result.
A: That's nice. I like explanations.

Q: Don't you care that I have a criticism of your argument?
A: I said we should throw out induction. As you may know, I think we should use an explanation-focussed approach. I took your claim to have an explanation, and lack of claim to have induced anything, as agreement.

Q: But how am I supposed to object to your argument using only induction? Induction isn't a tool for criticizing invalid uses of induction.
A: So you're saying induction cannot tell us which inductions are true or false. We need explanation to do that. So induction is useless without explanation, but explanation is not useless without induction.

Q: That doesn't prove induction is useless.
A: Have you ever thought about how much of the work, in a supposed induction, is done by induction, and how much by explanation?

Q: No.
A: Try it sometime.



Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Friday, July 12 - 3:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
So you're saying induction cannot tell us which inductions are true or false. We need explanation to do that. So induction is useless without explanation, but explanation is not useless without induction.
There is no great dichotomy between induction and explanation. Induction is explanation. Look how often why appears in my article here.



Post 2

Friday, July 12 - 3:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If you don't know what induction is, why are you attached to it and why do you try to argue about it?



Post 3

Friday, July 12 - 4:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If you don't know what induction is, why are you attached to it and why do you try to argue about it?
What makes you believe I don't know what it is but you do? Why do you persist arguing against it?



Post 4

Friday, July 12 - 4:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm familiar with the literature (on both sides). I've written a bunch of stuff you haven't answered. And you haven't answered the literature. I see no signs of understanding in your claims. You haven't been saying the kinds of things someone would say if they understood the subject.



Post 5

Friday, July 12 - 5:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I see no signs of understanding in your claims. You haven't been saying the kinds of things someone would say if they understood the subject.
LOL. Bye. I will waste no more time on it with you.
(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 7/12, 5:21pm)




Post 6

Wednesday, July 31 - 5:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Popper refuted induction by repetition. This is highly unremarkable.



Post to this thread
[an error occurred while processing this directive]


User ID Password or create a free account.