/lit/ - Literature

Rationalists are desperate to find some rules to turn their schizo ramblings into knowledge or truth, and even harder into communicable knowledge or truth.
So far they haven't found any single truth. This is why empiricists will always BTFO the rationalists.

>>23368019
the word induction shares roots with introduction, that is, to introduce, to add into. it could even be said to be an assumption in a way. not everyone inducts the same way. the bottom line here is hegel is in the right. you cannot say induction is whatever left of deduction, because you are assuming they are both on an even playing field, that they are both two sides of the same coin: this is a fallacy. induction is something builds up from something, deduction is something already there that someone is working downwards in

the key distinction here is anyone and everyone can tear down the same house and result in the same bare essence of house remains, wood, stone, etc. in this sense, deduction is stable and consistent. induction however, everyone can build a completely different house with the same base materials, different dishes with the same ingredients. therefore, prople can conclude to radically different notions and ideas from the same thing -- inconsistency and far more prone to error than deduction. therefore it cannot be said to be the same, as one is stable, the base materials, the other unstable, and can be whatever. like scaffolding, induction has its uses, but certainly not as strong as true brick and mortar deduction from base phenomena. this by the way is the great risk and danger of scienticsm, the idea that you can induce anything and everything and build a house on sand because you inducted it that way

>>23368019
>argument by analogy, generalization
clearly inductive
>mathematical induction
clearly deductive. It's called that not because it's a genuine example of induction, but as a useful name because its structure kinda sorta suggests induction. For comparison, note that the Klein bottle is not a "bottle" by any sane definition of "bottle"
>triangles have three sides
either deductive or axiomatic (neither deductive nor inductive), depending on how triangle is defined
>whatever is left of logic that is not deduction
Define "logic". I suspect this definition will eventually depend on an enumeration of its categories, making this definition of induction circular

The difference between these categories hinges on the concept of justification. Axioms are defined as true, and need no justification. Deductions are shown to be true, and justified by the reasoning and the axioms that show their truth. Inductions are only probabilistically true, and are justified by being the most likely explanation; that is, they are "true" and "justified" only according to separate, induction-specific notions of "truth" and "justification"

>>23368019
Mathematical induction is deductive.

>>23368019
Also worth noting you were the one trying to bring up Hume and you self refuted in a Hegel thread.

>>23368019
Houellebecq is pitiful, not because he doesn't have enough sex, but because he gives it so much importance.

>>23368056
>>23368059
>>23368069
My idea of generalizing what induction is, is the logic of change, anything that admits change, whether by observation or by relation of ideas, is irrelevant as long as your propositions are changing in whatever way, then they appeal to induction implicitly as opposed to deduction which relies only on linguistic relations and definitions. And this induction can also work within a deductive framework, like mathematical induction does, it relies on the nature of increasing natural numbers to make mathematical generalizations, i.e proving euclids gcd algorithm requires both induction and deduction, whereas proving that socrates is a man does not require induction if you understand the propositions--inb4 you have to observe men, that's irrelevant, because it assumes the proposition has to be sound, i only care about validity not soundness, this to me, seems like the heart of the disagreement btn induction and deduction

>>23368094
>i only care about validity not soundness
i would say that this is not a viable or functional framework, but you yourself have already admitted disdain for soundness. validity without soundness is noise

>>23368120
Math does not care about soundness and yet it works. There is no criteria for soundness in math, that's a scientific concept. Math is a good example because both induction and deduction work without appeal to soundness.

>>23368077
>>Houellebecq is pitiful, not because he doesn't have enough sex, but because he gives it so much importance.
because in democracy, the audience of the writers is women, and women center their lives on sex. This is why democracy displays so much sex everywhere, and why women thrive in democracy.

>>23368094
You are more than welcome to believe to what you like, the great thing about belief is that it has no applicability to the rest of us.

>>23368182
>seethes about my belief while providing no justification or counterarguments
so are you chud, you can believe i am wrong and it has no applicability to me

>>23368192
Are you trying to say mathematicians are not concerned with soundness? You have also so far been talking more about math than philosophy, so if you want to get into hair splitting territory then which are you referring to?

>>23368207
Can you prove that a mathematical proposition--like the existence of complex numbers is true the same way you can prove the sun is shining? My point about soundness is that its not a necessary thing in talking about deduction. Deduction works without appeal to soundness.

>>23368019

How can induction not be part of logic? The premises that you employ in logic can only ultimately arise by induction. If you were born with no senses at all - not even a sense of touch - you would have no conception of anything.

>>23368019
Deduction can prove something is true given a set of assumptions while induction can not, it's like a bunch of circumstantial evidence versus provable math. The idea of the triangle is deduced from ideas given by inductive logic like by using observations about space to define the point space we use to draw triangles in. Working within the defined space we can deduce things about it that must hold as long as our basic assumptions also hold.

>>23368226
You have it completely backwards. We can prove the existence of numbers but not that the sun is shining.

>>23368240
Yes but that's my point, the triangle doesn't have to be a real thing, we could transfer the same analogy, by induction, kek, to the definition of an alien we have never seen being a biped who lives outside earth and we could make deductive arguments based on that new framework.

>>23368226
Soundess is an aspect of deductive reasoning. There is a similar notion in mathematical logic. So, this gets back to my question which you have not answered, if you want to get into hair splitting territory, are we talking about math or philosophy?

>Induction is ultimately harnessed through experience in the physical world.
>Deduction is ultimately harnessed through reason in the metaphysical world.
>Abduction is ultimately harnessed through intuition in the psychical world.

>>23368264
>the triangle doesn't have to be a real thing
It's provably as real as points and lines. How real you consider them is a matter of definition of "real" but they have some form of existence external to the mind even if the mind is assigning them arbitrary significance.

>>23368266
It doesn't matter, why are you confining yourself, we can switch to metaphysics and talk about noumena and forms and soundness would not be important, within this framework validity is more important.

>>23368282
Provable to whom? Is a talking mouse more real than the sun?

>>23368283
Ah I see, you are not interested in learning about inductive reasoning, as I already stated, you are welcome to believe whatever you want, larp it all the way to the hilt, the great thing about your beliefs is that they have no applicability on the rest of us.

>>23368255

How can you prove the existence of numbers? Go ahead and try, we'll be waiting.

>>23368301
Ah i see you are too retarded to explain what you mean, bye, your beliefs have no applicability on mine. Come back when you have found a better way to explain your position.

>>23368306
Still incredibly butthurt about losing and self-refuting aren't you? This must be the true power of metaphysics.

>>23368320
I am sure you believe so, but it has no applicability on me

>>23368292
>Provable to whom?
Provable within a set of axioms. You appeal to the same axioms of logic but with additional baggage with every argument you make. Making a claim about the sun rests on the same assumptions required for triangles and numbers but also a million others. Proving anything about it is much harder and needs you to prove the existence of triangles and numbers too anyway.
>>23368305
If lines exist we can overlay an incremental value to signify where on the line we are. The value represents something real as long as the basic assumption hold like that points and lines also represent something real.

>>23368338
Yes but the sun exists outside this framework you have constructed post epistemically, while numbers don't, we can use numbers yes but proving their existence is something else entirely, just like we could talk about a talking mouse but it becomes problematic to prove theu exists--necessitating invention of axioms. They are not remotely similar ways of having knowledge

>>23368019
Induction can only be induction if it starts by an appeal to experience of things through the senses. So "all cows I've seen are white with black spots" would be an example of induction taking place, from which some generalization can be derived. Through a number of such inductions, you could begin reasoning about mammals, spotted animals, qudropeds, etc., but what's crucial is the appeal to experience and generalizing from it. That's not to say that some arguments that present themselves as other than inductive couldn't be found to ultimately rely on some kind of induction, bt you'd have to, in those cases, be very clear what the actual induction is an induction of.

>>23368019
>get blown the fuck out
>make a new thread to cry about it

>>23368360
Induction could also arise from metaphysical objects that have no appeal to such experience such as morality. The penchant of man towards generalizing or prescribing human behaviour starting from personal, to family, to societal so this is not true at all. I don't understand why so many of you take induction to mean only whatever hume meant when the greeks were already using it.

>>23368366
>Still seething enough to comment on the new thread

>>23368376
>Induction could also arise from metaphysical objects that have no appeal to such experience such as morality.
NTA but even though you can use Induction in the metaphysical phenomena, it cannot be considered "true knowledge" outside its own realm. Perception is "inductive knowledge" par excelence, anything else is susceptible to be dismissed.

>>23368402
Yes but the point i am making is not about true knowledge, its what distinguishes btn deductive and inductive logic

>>23368351
>Yes but the sun exists outside this framework
We haven't demonstrated that even a little but we have demonstrated that numbers exist using a limited set of the axioms you would use to demonstrate anything about the sun. The idea of the sun implies separate things in space with distances, real lines.
Our ideas aren't reality so it's not a matter of proving they "exist" but that they represent something. If you count lengths of lines like the distance to the sun using talking mice as units the reality being represented is still real.
When defining the sun where do you stop? Where's its surface? Every atom in me and the energy being released to type these words comes from the sun so how can you say it's not the sun speaking? The points we choose to distinguish phenomena are real but arbitrary like the number line.

>>23368376
I don't think that would be an induction of metaphysical objects, since moral phenomena are always taught directly or indirectly in a community. That seems to be more like induction of opinions in speech about this or that behavior.

>>23368275
Why is Abduction almost never mentioned?

>>23368458
You still don't understand what i am saying, to prove the sun exists, i can point at it, feel its warmth etc, i don't even need to speak. To prove numbers exists requires more work, language, symbols, logic, axioms etc.
>>23368462
yes but that's irrelevant, human morality stems from generalizing, we have christianity because some jews and greeks got together to generalize human behaviour for the entire world, this is induction of whatever metaphysical principle you think is right

>>23368478
abduction is just induction with stricter criteria for predictions, it still falls under the same umbrella

>>23368378
"Hegelfag" here, nta, actually, but gratifying to see you're being taken to task more here after dipping out of the other thread. I won't go around throwing accusations about seething when you started a new thread to cope over being shown you don't even agree with Hume, your go-to in criticizing Hegel, over what induction is, let alone what counts as being inducted. I believe it's called sophistry when you argue from the use of the authority of a thinker, and then complain when it's shown you yourself depart from that thinker.

>>23368495
>still seething enough to identify himself,
nobody cares who you are, only your arguments matter here and you did not prove anything, only that induction to you is what hume said and nothing else

>>23368479
How is that irrelevant? You don't come to moral philosophy reasoning about "metaphysical" objects except having experiences of people teaching you that these words are important and correspond to this or that behavior. You reason about Courage because you induct people talking about it, the investigation of whether it's metaphysically real is always posterior to your familial, communal, and cultural education about it.

>>23368484
>abduction is just induction with stricter criteria for predictions
By the definition of the Peircean Triangle, it isn't.
>A interiori (Abduction): demonstration & conclusion > premise
>A posteriori (Induction): demonstration & premise > conclusion

>>23368503
Kek, stay assmad.

>>23368511
courage means different things to different people, in one culture its courageous to pillage and rape women, and in another its courageous to be cucked by your wife, you can't define these qualities with any certainty that will last the test of time, hence the inductive aspect
>>23368515
keep seething, i'll invite to the next thread i make so that i can stay in your head perpetually rent free

>>23368512
So every philosopher has their own definition for induction but deduction always stays the same, why am i not surprised?

>>23368528
Yes, we agree, but that's evidence to me that we don't start off with a metaphysical Courage and then induct over it, but that we inducted a bunch of experiences over this word we call Courage.

>>23368532
That's not the "gotcha" you think it is, since now you have to argue for your preferred definition as superior to big name philosophers who've thought more about this than you.

>>23368573
Is there any definition of Abduction, Deduction, and Induction better than Peirce's? I will await.

>>23368586
If you're >>23368512, then I've no argument with you. If you're >>23368532, and if you're OP, then I'm calling you a retard.

>>23368566
I don't agree, courage is not an experience at least one that can be defined, that's the point of that reply, so you can't induct over it, you can only give an excuse metaphysically of what it looks like then generalize over it

>>23368566
>we don't start off with a metaphysical Courage
And actually we do since some cultures don't even have a concept of justice or freedom or even better, democracy, these are metaphysical concepts that get generalized without prior experience

>>23368603
What is his definition of deduction?

>>23368618
Peirce's? Basically:
>A priori (Deduction): premise & conclusion > demonstration

>>23368610
I'm not talking necessarily about inducting the experience of Courage, I'm talking about inducting the experience of people using the word Courage, which is the necessary condition for later coming to reason about it or induct things in light of conclusions one has come to as a result of prior inductions. So I'm saying it's not:

>Given Courage -> make inductions about it

But

>Be raised to hear Courage talked about however many times in whatever ways -> induct from these opinion about Courage -> given this opinion about Courage -> induct based on it

Because it's the latter case that describes our inchoate understanding of moral phenomena in general, that would seem to describe reasoning from inductions over being taught moral things, rather than inducting from metaphysical objects.

>>23368637
then how do you explain this >>23368616?

>>23368616
I don't think we can say that with certainty. In principle, I don't see why it would be any different than how we distinguish animals in speech. Someone runs forward at something that can kill them and keeps fighting, and this gets distinguished by a different word one for "eats food but not like a pig" or "doesn't fuck with their neighbors".

>>23368620
These seem very simple, what does premise, demonstration and conclusion even mean, can you give examples of arguments using them and demonstrate how abduction, deduction and induction differ?

>>23368668
No we can, the colonialists introduced these concepts to cultures that had no experience of them and enforced them through might so experience is not needed when force will suffice.

>>23368072
OP is bringing up Hegel because induction is one person.

>>23368679
Force isn't some a prior noumenon or metaphysical object, if you're learning Courage from someone shouting the wrd and hitting you, you're still inducting.

>>23368695
That's not the point, you seem to think our disagreement is about induction when its about metaphysics. You first replied to me disagreeing about morality and humans generalizing from it, I am not even sure what we are arguing about anymore since its not even about induction.

>>23368673
By rule of thumb, if you can parse (it is a fact) it is the demonstration; (because/if) premise; and (necessarily) conclusion. Redundant example:
>Deduction: Because/if all swans are white (premise) & Necessarily those swans are white (conclusion) > It is a fact that those swans we are seeing are white (demonstration)

>>23368699
You said at >>23368376 that induction can arise from metaphysical objects, and I’m saying that what you called metaphysical objects there have their beginnings in inductively learning language and what people say about those things.

>>23368711
Yes but that doesn't stop the generalization from these metaphysical objects becoming induction. Calling morality metaphysical doesn't prevent us from learning such through language, they are not physical objects, they are metaphysical concepts.

>>23368338

You're retarded for two reasons. First, for thinking that the line is a principle of number, when in fact it is obviously the reverse. Second for thinking that such a procedure would actually prove the existence of lines. To prove that something is is to explain why it is; all you can do is show that it is, and think out what it is. This process begins with induction, as does your own example.

>>23368745

*existence of numbers

>>23368637

But the words that people say about courage would be incoherent if they didn't refer to some real entity. If our ideas and concepts don't refer to things in the world, what could they refer to?

>>23368708
This makes no sense honestly since its all about the whiteness of swans and the necessity of the whiteness, there's no more info to be gleaned from this self referential argument. Do you have an argument whose premises are different and yet follow each other, like socrates being a man and all men being mortal, etc.

>>23368728
Okay, let me see if I understand you, and correct me if I'm mistating things: a) you grant that something moral may be initially, say, pre-philosophically, learned through induction, b) that these inductions result in a generalization that has a different status from the experiences that cause the generalization, c) that these generalizations could be called metaphysical objects to distinguish them from the empircal experiences (whether they're "real" we could bracket), d) you can induct these or induct from these.

If I understand you, I follow you on a-c, but I'm not sure what exactly you mean by d. Could you provide an example?

>>23368757
No i am saying that induction happens from metaphysics-- i value democracy and justice, therefore you, a foreigner who has no experience of democracy and justice should value it too, and not necessarily from direct observations like generalizing the sun shining tomorrow because it has always shone in the past.

>>23368751
>This makes no sense honestly since its all about the whiteness of swans and the necessity of the whiteness,
That's why it is a redundant example.
>Do you have an argument whose premises are different and yet follow each other, like socrates being a man and all men being mortal, etc
Deduction is proper to Mathematics, so here it goes:
>Deduction: premise I: because/if it is said that every whole number — except zero — is a positive successor of another natural number; premise II: because/if it is said that no two different whole numbers possess the same successor; premise III: because/if it is said that one is the successor of zero, two is the successor of the successor of zero, et cetera; premise IV: because/if it is said that the sum of a number A and the succession of a number B is equal to the succession of the sum of number A and B: conclusion: necessarily the sum of two successions of zero being equal to the succession of the succession of zero plus zero next to the consideration that the succession of zero is one and the succession of the succession of zero is two results that one (succession of zero) plus one (succession of zero) equals two (succession of the succession of zero); demonstration: id in orbe.

>>23368749
>But the words that people say about courage would be incoherent if they didn't refer to some real entity. If our ideas and concepts don't refer to things in the world, what could they refer to?
Is an action an entity? I could understand certain words arising out of the usefulness of distinguishing actions or attitudes, but it does sometimes seem like language can slip and slide all over itself. Take Latin "virtue", initially a kind of manliness. But is it in all men? Apparently not, so it becomes something like what it means to be manly in an exemplary way. But then, as the Romans reas the Greeks more, it comes to just mean the general excellences of the Greek arete, and, as Christianity becomes predominant, sometimes the polar opposite of manliness, a kind of meek excellence. Are they all equally real but poorly distinguished? It's hard to say, but easier to observe that sometimes the word referent changes.

>>23368786
Is your example supposed to have the form of something like:

>I value x
>I induct that others value x
?

Or is it:
>I value x
>Being a person who values x, I induct that other people must also value x
?

What exactly is the inducted thing in your example?

>>23368787
i am not sure what's the difference btn conclusion and demonstration-which seems unnecessary in a proof, like a crutch for those who don't understand abstractness so need a physical demonstration, is it any wonder we use frege's predicate logic and not peirce's

>>23368813
>i am human
>i live in a successful society
>Our society is successful because it values metaphysical x
>Therefore all human societies should value x to be successful

Apply this format to all colonizing forces, religious and cultural alike.

>>23368819
Yes, demonstration in Deduction, conclusion in Induction, and premise in Abduction are tautological, but that's the beauty of Peirce's triangle; it defines the inherent relationship of fundamental logic.

>>23368479
>to prove the sun exists, i can point at it, feel its warmth etc
You proved nothing to nobody including yourself. You privately observed that something is happening and labelled part of that private experience "sun".
I understand you, you don't understand any words or concepts.

>>23368855
I can smack you and you would understand pain with no language, a group of hungry people seeing a meal understand hunger with no language, etc not the same with numbers or concepts, etc. You can't bridge that gap anon, call it private experience or not

>>23368745
I already explained in detail how it begins with induction and how that's not relevant to these systems that are reliably reproducible in computers. The observation that they're reliable is an inductive argument. Proving triangles exist given that points and lines exist is not.
Historically our math traditions relied on geometry to prove everything so the number rests on the line not the other way around. Negative numbers were considered made up nonsense for the longest time because they didn't represent a real geometric size in space.

>>23368830
I don't see how this example isn't ultimately a set of inductions about how people mean society, successful, and running with it. But that doesn't look like an induction from metaphysics, if anything, it looks like a deduction from things inducted prior.

>>23368871
I already showed that certain societies have no concept of justice and democracy or why it should apply to them, this is a generalization its not deductive, deduction assumes unchanging definitions about things like success, or society and it doesn't generalize, it specifies. A deduction would be like: y is a successful human society, all successful human societies believe in metaphysical x, therefore y believes in x, that is a concrete unchanging definition of what success and society mean.

>>23368864
Completely incoherent looping noise only revealing that you don't understand anything you're replying to. A feral tribal measures using units like the width of his thumb. What he's measuring is real no matter how he we measure it, label it or conceptualize it.
I privately observe lengths exist and split them up into labelled units. This is not fundamentally different from the arbitrary distinctions you make between different parts of experience like the sun and earth. The distinctions are real but chosen to suit arbitrary goals of life out of any number of distinctions you could choose.
>understand pain
Nobody understands pain. Something is happening, "pain" is a complex abstract concept resting on a million assumptions. If you want to go further than just saying "ugh something happen" you have to use more advanced tools aka actual thinking to conceptualize the world and given that the most basic tools represent reality then reality has triangles.

>>23368894
But your example didn't show an induction from Democracy or Justice, the move from that to a foreigner believing your premises is either a deduction or a leap, but not an induction. Take the old "all men are mortal, etc." argument that deduces that Socrates is mortal, and ignoring that it's not even really how Aristotle's logic quite works. The two premises are discovered by induction or a series of observations that enable you to recognize men to be mortal, and Socrates to be an instance of men, and the conclusion is deduced.

>>23368938
That is not the point dimwit, measuring distance into units and perceiving sun are not the same thing, one requires metaphysical leap, language, etc if it was possible then humans would not be the only intelligent beings. You are trying to argue after the fact, trying to justify your scientific knowledge and missing the entire point of the argument like a human trying to convince a monkey that god is real when the monkey doesn't need such justifications.

>>23368956
democracy or justice is metaphysical x in case you did not notice, i could also include rape or murder or whatever other flavour of belief you think is relevant to generalization and i don't even need to confine it to society, i could do the same to families, or fraternities, or sports clubs it is irrelevant at this point if you still don't get my point about metaphysical generalization

>>23368983
There's no induction taking place in your example, there's just a deduction from givens, we both know that no one pops out of the womb on some remote island inducting from Democracy and Justice, those are dependent on the experience of having been raised with a language those words belong to, the only possible induction in your example is if you take your own experience of your belief and generalize from it, but that's an induction of your awareness of believing something, not an induction from something metaphysical.

>>23369023
deductions do not generalize, you can talk about givens all day but can't prove how deductions generalize anything, can you offer a definition of deduction that generalize a property found only in one x to all instances of x?

>>23369023
Also lots of people believe in a god they have never seen so this observation criteria is bunkum, you can't prove to anyone that someone wasn't born believing in such notions and then spread them around, the first god, the lion man of hohlestein-stadt was he observed by anyone? Did it take any observation for the egyptians to believe in their gods?