Author Topic: Deduction versus Induction  (Read 1280 times)

Offline Andreas Geisler

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 117
Re: Deduction versus Induction
« Reply #30 on: April 04, 2014, 03:23 AM »
Do you have an idea of what it means to form a "necessary inference" on the basis of induced categories?
Are you capable of discerning the actual impact the subsumed induction has on the actual reliability of the "necessary" inference?
I sure as hell am not, except that it is insidious and ranges from the small to the enormous.

And since revealed theological belief, i.e. theism, is irrational and continuously propped up with deductive arguments that mainly reflect the wishful thinking of people like Plantinga and others, it is relevant to point out that relying on deduction is no defense against being irrecoverably wrong.

Descartes' cogito, as I pointed out, is circular. But Descartes' daemon is brilliant. We do in fact have to take the world on faith, to be able to know anything.

Quote
(…if you’re trying to lead me to your ‘ostentiation’ as basis of learning, I won’t go there.)  My meaning of ‘society’ here is any external human contact.  Language arrives first verbally through the people closest in contact with the infant, as spoken word (perhaps as some argue, even with the mother before birth) and accompanied with tactile interactions – connecting that to written language comes much later, with letter blocks and Sesame Street and flash cards and Dick and Jane readers and such.

Babies aren’t sitting in some isolation lab somewhere discovering shit on their own – they are at the center of a fairly constant micro attention and socially engaged by their families from inception. The understanding emerges as consistency of pattern in meaning that is strengthened through iterative reinforcement with people around us.  The essence of this inherent social consistency is that in imparting understanding on children, people always refer to apples as apples, and not arbitrarily switch to calling them bananas, then cats, then cardboard, then peat moss, etc.  Simply put, the child becomes familiar with the socially established meaning of things because there is a significant degree of established consistency to it, acting as normative reinforcement.

There is also no circularity in my logic, as I see such thinking as necessary in understanding the emergence of thinking itself – perhaps what you may see as ‘circularity’, I see is iterative growth. There is a distinct starting point to it – the first sensorial impressions, and from there, each experience noted in the infant brain is itself temporally unique, and so while finding a contextual match, it may also add distinctly unique qualia to each iterative experience of it, enriching and expanding what has built up with each pass, until complex associative structure becomes the norm.

Any need to have ‘access to the reasons for its codification’ is only relevant for an already learned adult who intentionally undertakes to formally deconstruct and understand how language historically came to be.
You won't "go" to ostentation?
You won't go the temporal association of stimuli leading to the inductive formation of a theory of ontology?
Also, do you have evidence for children (all children) being the pampered focus of their parent's attention? They are not. They still learn language.
Because they see and hear language being used, and pick out the patterns inductively.
All attempts to bootstrap meaning to Chomskyan generativism have failed, it is simply not possible to teach meaning without a common code. Only to show the meaning to establish a common code, and then work from there. And that is ostentation, at its root.

Finally, I am not rejecting deduction as a useful tool for evaluating inductive outcomes, but there is no basis for the primacy given to deduction by philosophers. And deduction cannot be fully understood without first fully understanding the inductive reality we use it to correct.
Any attempt to (purely) deductively gain knowledge is doomed. We cannot deductively validate reality, but we should not disregard the overwhelmingly strong inductive inference that reality is. If deduction fails to validate reality, it is because deduction cannot speak of reality. One cannot deduce something into existence.

Offline Pat Johnston

  • Moderator
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 37
Re: Deduction versus Induction
« Reply #31 on: April 09, 2014, 02:04 AM »
Quote
Are you capable of discerning the actual impact the subsumed induction has on the actual reliability of the "necessary" inference?
I sure as hell am not, except that it is insidious and ranges from the small to the enormous.

In other words, can you know the falsehood of an established premise, such as a direct observation,  before it is actually discovered to be false? Well of course not - you can't know it is false until it has actually been falsified, and that is the whole point of the deductive process.

Direct observation, in so far as it is direct, is deductive evidence - not induction as you keep asserting. What ever it may mean beyond its direct attributes is conceivable through induction, as are any theories to undermine/disprove it. Those unnecessary inferences remain unnecessary until evidenced otherwise. If another direct observation subsumes the first, then that becomes the basis of the new premise. Otherwise it continues, but as corrections are made it becomes a moving (adapting) frame of reference.

And it's also why the process, when properly applied, should be open and ongoing and self correcting.  At every stage of analysis you can know the accumulated degree of its testing, and by that rigor, can establish a measure of its reliability upon which to rate its current assurance. There need be nothing "insidious" or "enormous" about it - that is trappings of attitude. I said in corollary number seven that its finding a good balance in each case that brings critical reason, but over the years I've come to call it something else -  'adaptive reason'.

As for this 'ostentiation' of yours (...I assume 'ostentation' is a repeating typo - seems your own spell checker lacks the word and you yourself have yet to add it to your personal dictionary...) - you introduced this word in this post on August 10th last year:

? https://plus.google.com/112978587206873384831/posts/B6NWyZnLauf

Therein I asked you to define it as I could find no other reference to it anywhere. Since then, I've not seen it used anywhere else, nor have I found any additional corroboration of it's use by anyone else.

? In that post?, you said:
Quote
"Ostentiation is linguistic terminology. If you ask "what is a lareplatic monagrifier?" and someone holds up a device, saying "this is a  lareplatic monagrifier", then proceeds to show you what it does, then that is ostentiation. You are given an explanation that primarily entails the direct coupling between the word and an object it refers to... and not a wordy explanation that can be tied to axioms.?"

...so 'ostentiation' is just custom jargon for 'superficial learning by demonstration', without embellishing with "wordy explanations" to tie down the object's fuller 'meaning' to anything axiomatic, right? Much like noting that you are the only source for this word and may have 'induced' it into existence, and as you are its only source, that I can detect, it may be whatever you 'demonstrate it to be'. When in fact it could be bafflegab, or, for all I know, it could be what happens when a 'lareplatic monagrifier transmogrifies into a high efficiency schoepentoeter. In other words, otherwise lacking an independent and formal definition, I would be unable to independently discern the actual impact of its subsumed induction on the reliability of the necessary inference that you offer for its meaning.

Quote
"Finally, I am not rejecting deduction as a useful tool for evaluating inductive outcomes, but there is no basis for the primacy given to deduction by philosophers. And deduction cannot be fully understood without first fully understanding the inductive reality we use it to correct.
Any attempt to (purely) deductively gain knowledge is doomed. We cannot deductively validate reality, but we should not disregard the overwhelmingly strong inductive inference that reality is. If deduction fails to validate reality, it is because deduction cannot speak of reality. One cannot deduce something into existence. "

...?good that you acknowledge that deduction plays an important role in reasoning, but still the central misconception?,? leading from a pure begging of the question:  you keep assuming the conclusion of your argument as the basis of its proof. That unnecessary inference better represents reality than the actual evidence of it.

Induction is unnecessary inference, so not 'reality', just 'possibility'?, and by that yardstick, really no such thing as 'inductive reality', just inductive abstractions about it, corroborated by knowable examinations ?where possible, ?to verify, refute, adjust, dispel it, and even to leave it unresolved.

Further, one deduces 'what is', not, 'what is not', so it is illogical to say "deduction cannot speak of reality", and your last sentence makes no sense - no one ever tries to "deduce something into existence" - if they say or imply this then they are misusing/misunderstanding the word:  you deduce only what's already there. I could see someone thinking they can 'induce' something into existence, but therein lies the rub of it: ?pegging something ?as '?rea??l ?'? by its mere assumption, without corroboration.

I don't speak for other philosophers. I argue for the primacy of nothing beyond the formal process for each reasoning form, since they are clear and simple abstractions of definition and rule, and need no further honing in themselves. It is the outputs from both forms of reasoning that should remain suspect. ? Reasoning of modern concepts and quandaries is complex, so good to have many disciplined eyes on it's entire length.

I realize too - the very title of this thread holds an induced notion that reinforces the misconception: "deduction vs induction". It should rather be: "The role of ?in?duction and ?de?duction in reasoning". As I say, it is ?to be at its best, adaptive ?- a balanced and iterative play between inductive guessing and deductive checking. No pure deduction ever on its own. Nor a wanton ?over?commitment to induction by itself. As with the adage, it is to 'trust but verify'. For all things in all ways, and by all means available.

And with that, my latest inductive inference (which may? amount to a bit of wishful thinking, I admit): that at some point you will concede that this is what I have been saying from the beginning, if only I might deduce that you eventually t?ake the time to read it all through and confirm this of your own ?willful ?accord.

Offline Andreas Geisler

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 117
Re: Deduction versus Induction
« Reply #32 on: April 09, 2014, 06:04 AM »
Direct observation, in so far as it is direct, is deductive evidence - not induction as you keep asserting. What ever it may mean beyond its direct attributes is conceivable through induction, as are any theories to undermine/disprove it. Those unnecessary inferences remain unnecessary until evidenced otherwise. If another direct observation subsumes the first, then that becomes the basis of the new premise. Otherwise it continues, but as corrections are made it becomes a moving (adapting) frame of reference.
This, I am afraid, is completely false.
There is no such thing as "deductive evidence", because the value of an observation to deduction is constrained to the instance where it happens:
"The bench is wet" is not evidence. It is a premise. And it took inductive observation to construct the very categories of meaning involved: Determinate, Bench, Is and Wet.
In other words, deduction has no slot for "this is indicative of that". Which is what evidence is.

Your attempt to co-opt the word evidence for deduction is specious, to say the least. Evidence is probabilistic, not "necessary inference", and I am frankly running out of patience with this. It seems to me that you are trying to rationalize your position, rather than realize that it is not rational to think the deduction can give better answers than induction. Because anything deduction can work with, induction has prepared.

That's like saying that nails are superior to boards, and that wooden sheds should use more nails and less boards, as a generally applied rule.

That is nonsense.

Offline Pat Johnston

  • Moderator
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 37
Re: Deduction versus Induction
« Reply #33 on: April 09, 2014, 01:08 PM »
What is utter nonsense is your utter refusal to acknowledge what I am saying. Sticking with your metaphor, it is not nails by themselves, nor boards by themselves, but the right balance of the two - as per spec - to build the house as per blueprinted design. A missque in following design may land a wall in the wrong place, so revert to the spec and adjust either it or the outcome accordingly.   And every structure comes with its own unique set of plans designed to optimally balance the materials required to meet its designed spec.

Offline Andreas Geisler

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 117
Re: Deduction versus Induction
« Reply #34 on: April 09, 2014, 05:16 PM »
I don't understand why you are upset.

I just now re-visited the top post in this discussion, and realized that it is formulated as an "either-or". Of course that's silly.

Offline Pat Johnston

  • Moderator
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 37
Re: Deduction versus Induction
« Reply #35 on: April 09, 2014, 05:48 PM »
...not upset, just confused by an apparent contradiction - so to revisit the elements, shows how corroboration helps to clear things up...

Offline Andreas Geisler

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 117
Re: Deduction versus Induction
« Reply #36 on: April 10, 2014, 01:08 AM »
My only beef is with the deductive primacy in Philosophy.

Deduction is GREAT in axiomatic systems.

Reality just isn't one.

Offline Eric Bright

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 135
Re: Deduction versus Induction
« Reply #37 on: April 10, 2014, 01:28 AM »
Great! It is good to know that no one is arguing for a ‘this or that’ stance in here. I just wanted to know that.

With that clarification, I think we can close this topic and move on to the next. I am going to work on the next topic tonight and will post it tomorrow. I am also going to luck this topic.

In case you guys have more things to add, please let me know and I will re-open/unlock the topic so you can post under it again.
“Don’t speak unless you can improve on the silence.”