The inductive argument for induction [paraphrased from Eric]: The fact that induction has been so successful in the past should convince of its usefulness in the future.
*-- Russ Abbott* *_____________________________________________* *** Professor, Computer Science* * California State University, Los Angeles* * Google voice: 747-*999-5105 Google+: https://plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/ * vita: *http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/ *_____________________________________________* On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 9:49 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES <e...@psu.edu> wrote: > Owen, > As I understand it: > Doug announced his ordination. After a bit of banter, Doug made some > generalizations about religious and non-religious people based on his past > experience.... but... the ability to draw conclusions from past experience > is a bit philosophically mysterious. The seeming contradiction between > Doug's disavowal of faith and his drawing of conclusion based on induction > set off Nick. Nick attempted to draw Doug into an open admittance that he > accepted the truth of induction as an act of faith. But Nick never quite > got what he was looking for, and this lead to several somewhat confused > sub-threads. Eventually Nick just laid the problem out himself. However, > this also confused people because, 1) the term 'induction' is used in many > different contexts (e.g., to induce an electric current through a wire), > and 2) there is lots of past evidence supporting the effectiveness of > induction. > > The big, big, big problem of induction, however, is that point 2 has no > clear role in the discussion: If the problem of induction is accepted, then > no amount of past success provides any evidence that induction will > continue to work into the future. That is, just as the fact that I have > opened my eyes every day for the past many years is no guarantee that I > will open my eyes tomorrow, the fact that scientists have used induction > successfully the past many centuries is no guarantee that induction will > continue to work in the next century. > > These threads have now devolved into a few discussions centered around > accidentally or intentionally clever statements made in the course > conversation, as well as a discussion in which people can't understand why > we wouldn't simply accept induction based on its past success. The latter > are of the form "Doesn't the fact that induction is a common method in > such-and-such field of inquiry prove its worth?" > > Hope that helps, > > Eric > > > > On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 10:05 PM, *Owen Densmore <o...@backspaces.net>*wrote: > > Could anyone summarize the recent several thread that originated with this > one? > > I'm sorry to have to ask, but we seem to have exploded upon an interesting > stunt, but with the multiple threads (I Am The Thread Fascist) and the > various twists and turns, I'd sorta like to know what's up! > > -- Owen > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > Eric Charles > > Professional Student and > Assistant Professor of Psychology > Penn State University > Altoona, PA 16601 > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
