The tag has no wiki summary.

learn more… | top users | synonyms

3
votes
2answers
105 views

How does abstraction/generalization in mathematics fit into inductive reasoning?

I have a question about the nature of generalization and abstraction. Human reasoning is commonly split up into two categories: deductive and inductive reasoning. Are all instances of generalization ...
3
votes
3answers
123 views

What must nature's uniformity be like in order for scientific induction to be (non-deductively) valid?

I was thinking about one of the points made about induction, that it assumes that nature is uniform. So this leads me to the question about what this uniformity must be like in order for induction to ...
3
votes
3answers
359 views

Why is argument by analogy invalid?

There is a well known fallacy called the "argument by analogy" fallacy. As I understand it, the fallacy occurs in a situation where someone makes a reasonable comparison between two situations and ...
4
votes
5answers
380 views

Inductive argument for infinite number of cities

Think of a city, say the capital of Germany, Berlin. Now I can easily come up with another city, like San Fransisco. Now with two cities in mind, I can still come up with another city (Stockholm, for ...
2
votes
3answers
163 views

Has the Problem of Induction been solved?

The problem as to acquiring knowledge about times where we cannot experiment/observe. For e.g, you haven't seen the future, so you cannot make any definitive statements, or rather, scientifically ...
1
vote
1answer
75 views

What does Samir Okasha mean in this quote about converting invalid to valid argument?

I'm reading Samir Okasha's article "Does Hume’s argument against induction rest on a quantifier-shift fallacy?" and in page 240 there is this: Consider a typical inductive inference of the sort ...
6
votes
1answer
1k views

Is Poppers Solution to the Problem of Induction still valid?

Popper (negativly) solved the problem of induction by showing that there is no class of sentences (analytic/synthetic, a priori/a posteriori) in which a principle of induction can be phrased without ...
7
votes
1answer
676 views

What did Wittgenstein mean by saying that the belief in the causal nexus is a superstition?

In the Tractatus-Logicus Wittenstein says: 5.1361 The events of the future cannot be inferred from those of the present. Superstition is the belief in the causal nexus. I'm not quite ...
3
votes
2answers
598 views

Inductive reasoning and justification

Most people agree that knowing something one acquired from inductive reasoning is knowledge, that is justified true belief. For example we observed for years, that Sun rises from the East, we still ...
4
votes
1answer
182 views

Recursive definitions. Am I sane?

"The difference between me and a madman is the madman thinks that he is sane. I know that I am mad." ~ Salvador Dalí There are many terms defined in a recursive manner, e.g.: A person A is sane ...
5
votes
6answers
574 views

Why do we need a reason for believing that inductive method is necessarily true?

I've been a bit perplexed about the "problem" of induction. Hume challenges other philosophers to come up with a deductive reason for the inductive connection. If the justification of induction ...
1
vote
1answer
88 views

Popular exposition of the problem of induction

Is there a good survey article for lay readers (imagine an intelligent secondary-school pupil who may later do graduate work in philosophy but doesn't yet know much) of the philosophical difficulties ...
4
votes
5answers
343 views

How does induction relate to falsifiability?

I was thinking about the question How can I know that I am not immortal? and started wondering about the relation between induction and falsifiability. Regarding the cited question, one thinks: well, ...
6
votes
8answers
549 views

How can I know that I am not immortal?

You think that you will die just because everyone dies. And you would like to know if you are immortal. How can you know if you are immortal or not?
2
votes
1answer
135 views

Isnt induction just deduction with an implicit premise?

I have a problem with the distinction between induction and deduction. To me it does not make sense to talk about induction at all. People argue that the following is induction: A_1 is x A_2 is x ...
2
votes
1answer
179 views

Problem of induction without i.i.d

In this paper of Aaronson's, a proof is given of Occam's razor by appealing to PAC learning. My understanding of Valiant's bounds for PAC learners is that it requires i.i.d. This is often a ...
3
votes
1answer
477 views

What is the difference between the old problem of induction and Goodman's new problem of induction?

I just do not understand how he claims to have defeated the old problem.
7
votes
5answers
407 views

Does Karl Popper's work address the Principle of Uniformity of Nature?

It seems to me that Popper's solution does not address the more difficult problem of induction that Hume calls the Principle of Uniformity of Nature. In other words, we might find evidence against a ...
9
votes
2answers
621 views

What's the relevance of falsifiability in regards to logical arguments?

Is it reasonable to classify logical propositions that rely on deduction and are non-falsifiable as being inherently not worthy pursuing or does this just applies to inductive reasoning?