The Problem Of Induction, And Can It Be Solved?

Kathryn Schulz argues in “Evidence”, a chapter of her book called Being Wrong, that we need to “learn to actively combat our inductive biases: to deliberately seek out evidence that challenges our beliefs, and to take seriously such evidence when we come across it” (Schulz, 377”). By attending to counterevidence we can avoid making errors in our conclusions.

a common criticism of this approach is that it does not address the possible role of biological factors in human behaviour. And also that it leaves no room for the free will of an individual.

The above example does not preserve the truth, for instance, the premise does not provide truth in that, it a certain probability that all cups will be yellow in

Induction is a form of reasoning where the premises support the conclusion, but do not confirm that the conclusion is true. To justify induction, we are required to justify that we can infer that experiences we have never experienced will resemble those that we have experienced. Making inductive inferences is necessary for everyday life as well as in science. It is rational to rely on inductive arguments in everyday life for claims such as “the sun will rise tomorrow.” But inductive arguments require that nature is uniform. For example, tomorrow the laws of physics will continue to work the same as how they have in the past, so the world will continue spinning and the sun will rise. This perceived uniformity (the principle of uniformity of nature) allows claims like the one previously outlined to be easily understood. Although inductive arguments are useful, whether or not they can be justified is a topic of debate. In James Van Cleve’s “Reliability, Justification and the Problem of Induction,” he uses an inductive argument to attempt to justify induction. In his justification he claims that his method of argument is not circular. I argue that his reasoning is problematic because an inductive argument is not able to justify induction, mainly because inductive arguments presuppose the Principle of the Uniformity of Nature.

Actions that are agent-caused are either consistent with Fundamental Physical Theory or inconsistent with Fundamental Physical Theory.

The reason Goodman has a pressing issue with is, is due to the fact that this is a regularity of everyday life and has not been proven wrong. “An argument that violates a rule is fallacious seven if its conclusion happens to be true. To justify a deductive conclusion therefore requires no knowledge of the facts it pertains to.” (Goodman 63). Goodman here speaks on behalf of how it is impossible to call a statement such as “the sun will rise in the morning” because according to validity it must have a true conclusion with true premises. Yes the sun does come up every morning but there is always the possibility a scientific catastrophe occurs and the sun explodes and causes a supernova it will then contradict the conclusion. So many of the facts we have engraved in our brains do need to be thought through and examined carefully because if it is to be truly valid it can not be proven by just a reoccurring incident that has not been proven wrong. “I think, that lawlike or projectable hypotheses cannot be distinguished on any merely syntactical grounds or even on the ground that these hypotheses are somehow purely general in meaning” (Goodman 83). Consider the evidence that all emeralds examined thus far have been green. This draws us to conclude, by induction that universally all-future emeralds will be green. However, if this conjectures is lawlike or not relies on the predicates used in this

Therefore these two approaches are at the opposite end of the spectrum as the biological approach supports the nature side of the argument and the behaviourist approach supports the nurture side of the argument. Another example of the polar opposites of the Biological approach and the Behaviourist approach is that another assumption of the Biological approach is that human genes have evolved to adapt behaviour to the environment. On the other hand, one assumption of the Behaviourist approach is that behaviour is learnt through association

For Kathryn Schulz description in the reading “Evidence” she presents a vivid viewpoint over inductive inclinations or inductive thinking. Inductive thinking may be a method for speculation that structures our feelings as stated by those path we were brought up or those society we are starting with (Schulz).

The reason induction originated as a concept of reasoning did not come from its ability to result in proofs, but the usefulness in predicting future occurrences which it allows. As an example of this principle, we can bring into the light the supposed laws of nature which provide constants to our physical world. For any number of the infinite reasons at any instantaneous point of time exceptions to the laws of nature can emerge. Due to this fact, and the fact that the laws of nature are based on a finite number of circumstances of which permanence is assumed, laws of nature cannot be fully proven. However, without the human assumption of the existence of laws of nature, the progress of science would be halted. The laws of nature serve as an exceptional example of how even without a definite proof, inductive reasoning enables leaps in knowledge and

I found another illogical statement in number 6 which states that “If Lady Gaga uses Truvia, it must taste better than Splenda.” This is an ad populum fallacy because it does not contain a reason for believing that Truvia tastes better than Splenda. This is problematic because its reasoning is based off the preference of a celebrity. We have no evidence in this statement that gives us proper reasoning to believe that Truvia is better than Splenda. A more appropriate statement would include

The purpose of this paper is to argue that Alvin Goldman's paper "A Causal Theory of Knowing" does not solve the problem in Edmund Gettier's paper "Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?" To argue the old view of knowledge, Gettier presents a case in which a Subject (S) is justified in believing that a proposition (P) and P entails another proposition (Q). S deduces Q from P and accepts Q. Then S is justified in believing Q. In the first Case that Gettier presents however, P is falsely justified, but Q is a true justified belief: Smith (S) is justified in believing that Jones is the man who will get the job and Jones has ten coins in his pocket (P). Thus, the man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket (Q). S is justified in

In this piece, Karl Popper articulates a common fallacy that occurs when people begin to discuss the use of inductive logic to reach an end. Popper defines the problem of induction as that which we can question whether inductive inferences are acceptable as a means to an end. In other words, it questions the ability to use inductive claims to make a universal statement. Inductive claims are those that Popper describes as those that are based off of experiences. Popper deduces that in order for us to make a universal claim from experiences, he must first establish a principle of induction. This principal of induction as Popper defines would allow us to justify using inductive statements in a logically valid and precise form. Popper notes that

According to Karl Schneider from the article “Boring and unambitious? ... then you must be an engineer. So says a survey of 2,718 final-year engineering undergraduates” He states “Unfortunately for engineers, the stereotype that they are boring, un-ambitious, unattractive and male persists.” This is weak induction because there is no facts or data being collected stating that all engineers are boring, un-ambitious and unattractive. Mr. Brown continued, with strong induction, as a “scientific part of logic.” This part of induction comes from being rational, with a process to thinking, within that process is a logos from the ethos. Which means, all the facts and data that has been collected can be backed up to a following source. Furthermore, the facts that come from the scientific observation is not an irrational thinking process and more of a rational thinking process. According to Hugh Aldersey-Williams from the “The Third Coming of Carbon” he states this “the only known forms of pure carbon were diamond and graphite. Thus the discovery of a third form is remarkable in itself ... fairly abundant in nature, as attested by the recent unearthing of fullerenes in carbon-rich geological formations.” Here there is strong induction because there are facts that can be backed up to this statement. Even though I don’t have the full text you can still understand that

In the 17th century Francis Bacon introduced induction as the new method for producing scientific theories. However inductive reasoning is riddled with problems that make it unsatisfactory for demarcating science. Hume’s problem of induction

The hypothesis of the Peircean logical system viewed that one may say the logic of abduction and deduction add to our conceptual understanding of a phenomena (Chong Ho Yu, 2005), while the logic of induction provides empirical backing to conceptual knowledge (Chong Ho Yu, 2005). “In other words, abduction, deduction, and induction work together to explore, refine and substantiate research questions” (Chong Ho Yu, 2005). Some