The Problem Of Induction, Inductive Reasoning, And Weather

Whether we are aware of it or not, we depend on our past experiences to form our beliefs and ideas. Prior knowledge from personal experiences also explain why we come to the conclusions that we do in everyday life. Whether we like it or not, we are all guilty of believing things based on evidence we have formerly come across. There is a short little quiz in “Evidence” that proves to both you and Schulz that this is true. One of the seemingly simple questions included a photo of a shaded black rectangle with a white strip running behind it. The question was: “What is behind the shaded rectangle?” (Schulz, 365). Our automatic human assumption would be that the strip of white continued behind the rectangle. What we don’t think about is the fact that we truly don’t know what is actually behind that shaded rectangle, we use our former knowledge that something peaking through the top and the bottom must continue through the middle. The reality is, we have no logical indication what is really behind that black rectangle, but what is probable is what our mechanized answer is. Inductive reasoning is described as making

Peplau utilized both deductive and inductive reasoning in her theory development work (Reed & Shearer, 2011). The deductive reasoning methods used were that Peplau integrated ideas from a number of theories into her theory of interpersonal relations. Influenced by works of Sigmund Freud, particularly his interest in unconscious motivation as well as Harry S. Sullivan’s theory of interpersonal relations all contributed to her development of the theory of interpersonal processes in nursing, For example she refers to Sullivan’s concepts of anxiety, self-system and modes of experiencing. (Peterson & Bredow, 2017). She also incorporated into her theory some elements from developmental psychology and learning theory (Armstrong & Kelly, 1995) and some ideas of the humanistic psychologists, Abraham Maslow, Rollo May and Carl Rogers. (Peterson & Bredow, 2017). For example, Peplau’s systematic approach to establishment of nurse-patient relationship and therapeutic intervention are ideas that resonated with Martha Rogers' theoretical assumptions about human pattern and organization. (Armstrong & Kelly, 1995).

The second fallacy in the paper is Far-Fetched Hypothesis. This is a fallacy of inductive reasoning that is committed when we accept a particular hypothesis when a more acceptable hypothesis, or one more strongly based in fact, is available.

Jonathan Vogel wrote Skepticism and Inference to the Best Explanation as a solution to accept the real world hypothesis over any skeptical hypothesis. Vogel presents a compelling argument for a definitive reason to accept that the world we are experiencing is in fact the real world. I believe that Vogel’s argument falls short of proving a reason for accepting the real world hypothesis over a skeptical one. In this paper I will clearly explain Vogels argument, explain some important concepts to understand, and attempt to refute the argument.

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.

What kind of tribe is the Eneon? We do not have much information about this tribe as the anthropologists had just found out their existence. We only have limited information we received from the anthropologists. The information are based on the environment and climate they live in, the food they eat, their family and children, books and arts and their social aspect and attitudes toward war that the Eneon tribe are live in.

4. What does it mean to be nature natural? How do we acquire different types of understanding into our knowledge? Can this lead to bias and

“A Personalised Induction will always be more effective”. Discuss. Base your answer on theoretical concepts and techniques presented in class.

I read through the KAN+ website, and I must tell you that it is complete bogus. To answer your question, we cannot have absolute certainity in synthetic fields such as biology because of three main problems: the problem of sensations, the problem of induction, and the problem of theory-ladenness. The problem of sensations is that there is a difference between how you and I perceive an apple, compared to how the apple really exists in reality. Our senses are questionable and deceptive, and we can confirm what we are perceiving with one sense with our other senses. For example, if I see a cup of coffee in front of me, I am seeing the coffee but I can also touch, smell or taste the coffee to confirm that it is there. However, we cannot trust these other senses because they are also deceptive, and thus we have no way of really knowing what is in front of us. We cannot ask another nearby person because persons senses are also deceptive towards them, and thus we cannot trust our senses.

Many scientists believe variations are caused by environmental factors, such as food availability, weather and more; and that species evolve when environmental conditions change to increase the species survival. Darwin censures this idea; he believed that the main cause of variation is due to reproduction (Chapter I). Darwin suggested that parents pass down specific characteristics to their offspring, and those variations are continued on in the following generations. The problem with Darwin’s theory of reproduction is that Darwin did not comprehend how or why some characteristics are perennial and how others are not. Darwin’s inferences on variations also conflict with the idea that God created species independently, which was widely understood by many people in a time where religion was prominent (Chapter II).

In the selection, ‘Skeptical doubts concerning the operations of the understanding’, David Hume poses a problem for knowledge about the world. This question is related to the problem of induction. David Hume was one of the first who decided to analyze this problem. He starts the selection by providing his form of dividing the human knowledge, and later discusses reasoning and its dependence on experience. Hume states that people believe that the future will resemble the past, but we have no evidence to support this belief. In this paper, I will clarify the forms of knowledge and reasoning and examine Hume’s problem of induction, which is a challenge to Justified True Belief account because we lack a justification for our

The past decade has seen an explosive growth in biomedical research, ranging from the development of new pharmaceuticals and advances in cancer therapies to the identification and study of the human genome. The logic behind investigating the genetic causes of diseases is that once the molecular bases of diseases are known, precisely targeted medical interventions for diagnostics, prevention, and treatment of the disease themselves can be developed. The analysis of large quantities of time - stamped data will provide doctors with important information regarding the progress of the disease. Therefore, systems capable of performing temporal abstraction and reasoning become crucial in this context. Although the use of temporal - reasoning methods

It is logical to say that things happen for a reason. A ball, kicked by a child in a playground, flies through the air and eventually comes down to the ground. The child has kicked the ball enough times to expect that once the ball reaches its highest point, it will fall. Through experience of kicking the ball and it coming back to the ground, the child will develop expectations of this action. This thought process seems sound, yet a question of certainty arises. Can we be certain that future events will be like past events? Can we be certain that the ball will fall once it has been kicked? This concept was one of David Hume’s most famous philosophical arguments: the Problem of Induction. This paper will outline Hume’s standpoint, as well give criticism for his argument.

Karl Popper is commonly regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science in the 20th Century. He is well known for his rejection of the inductivist viewpoint of the scientific method, in which one uses observation to propose a law to generalize an observed pattern, and later confirm that law through more observation. Popper states that “induction cannot be logically justified” (Popper 14). Inductivism relies on the process of inductive reasoning which is a logical process in which multiple premises, all thought to be true and found to be true most of the time, are combined to obtain a conclusion and in many cases formulate a law or theory. Popper rejected the inductivist viewpoint in favor of a theory called empirical falsification which holds that a theory can never be proven, but it can be falsified, and therefore it can and needs to be scrutinized through experimentation.

Every step of arithmetic seems to demonstrate a real inductive progression, such as 2+1 = 3. It is based on solid fact. They are based on evidence. But even here we have inductive with calculations flowing form the fact.