Induction and Science

The above is an example of the "reasoning" principle known as inductive logic. It is absurd. Nobody would jump to the conclusion that all Crowes are wearing black shoes. There is nothing logical about so-called inductive logic.Why do people still cling to the myth that science uses induction? Why is there an appearance that induction seems to work, and why are people misled by this appearance?(suggest "Is It Science")

I disagree.It is how philosophers claim that science works. But most philosophers do not actually do science, so have no basis for making such assertions.You might enjoy reading "Against Method" (book by Paul Feyerabend). His proposal of counter-induction is a riot.[I will be suggesting alternatives to induction. But I first need to respond to some posts on induction from What we must accept if we accept evolution Part 2 (roughly messages 237-248 in that thread).]

In Message 247, Modulous wrote: If we change the inductive conclusion to "All crows are black, excepting those which are not black", then I grant the correctness of the conclusion. But it is no longer induction, it is tautology. The logic there is impeccable. The problem is with one of the premises.In Message 245, Faith wrote: Not so. It also leaves empirical methodology, and that is the heart of science.If induction is the key to science, then science proceeds by feeding symbolic facts into some kind of induction logic engine, and out come general truths. This has actually been tried. There is a whole research area, know as "machine learning", based on such inductive methodology. It hasn't produced anything close to what science achieves, nor to what children achieve as learners.

No, it isn't reasonable. But why not? Isn't that something philosophers, the self-appointed experts on reason, should have investigated? That was Nelson Goodman's explanation of his "grue" paradox. But it cannot explain science. If science depends on induction, but you only use inductions of the type that have worked before, then there is no way to get started and no way to get started in a new branch of science.

Here we are as an evolution site. Okay, it is an evolution vs. creation site. But the scientists here are mostly proponents of evolution.If ToE is correct, then biological system have been very effective in creating a diverse biosphere, and they have done it all without using induction. So why is it that the evolutionists are insisting on the importance of induction?

And I debunked it in Message 9:

If I had listed 1000 encounter with Crowes, would that make it any more persuasive? I am questioning whether science depends on "true regularities", and even whether there are such things.

Maybe I explained my point poorly.I was not suggesting irony in the way that ToE arose. Rather, I was pointing to such discoveries as that homo sapiens can find a viable niche on this planet, apparently without using induction in that process of discovery.

In Message 1, I gave an induction regarding Crowes (people named Crowe).

In Message 241, Modulous quoted wiki on a traditional induction regarding crows (the birds).

​

What is the difference between these cases?

​

Modulous attempted to explain the difference in Message 9 Message 7. IMO his explanation does not work.

​

Here is the difference as I see it:

The assignment of a name such as "Crowe" to people is pretty much arbitrary.

The assignment of a name such as "crow" to birds is a result of using systematic methodology.

​

I am arguing that what is said to result from induction is actually the result of systematic methodology. Because the study of birds has been systematic, and the name "crow" assigned as a result of that systematic methodology, we can be assured that crows form a reasonably homogeneous group of birds. An inference on the color of crows is based on this homogeneity. In effect, it is a kind of interpolation or extrapolation over a continuum, based on the evidence of a few examples. By contrast, the people named "Crowe" are expected to be relatively inhomogeneous, and thus we would not expect interpolation or extrapolation to be useful.

​

In summary, it is systematicity, not induction, that is important to science.

​

(edit: corrected message reference)

​

This message has been edited by nwr, 02-04-2006 06:51 PM

Perhaps it could be said to hint at some homogeneity. Still, scientists would not jump to an induction. Rather, they would investigate to look for a common cause.

Apologies on the incorrect reference. I have now edited my earlier message to correct that.You assert that there are no important differences.
Then you assert that there is a difference, important enough that induction would work. Seems contradictory. No, it isn't what you said. As a reason for a difference, you gave past experience. My reason was that the naming procedures for "crow" and "Crowe" are quite different, with one being systematic. Of course it is silly. That's why I picked it as an example.If you read the literature on induction, and there is quite a bit of it, you won't find reference to a principle "you have to have a reason to make the inductive leap." The input to the induction is supposed to be reason enough.

In the often presented example of crows, the standard literature does not suggest that you need to know how many crows exist.

Okay. But then you are relying on a different meaning for "induction."The usual account talks of the "logic of induction." If it is logic, then it is operation on symbols. Questions such as "an actual rationale" do not arise if induction is taken as a logic operation.

There may well be disagreements about what the term means. I'm dubious about generalization from just facts. You need an understanding of processes. I think it is pretty clear that Darwin relied on his knowledge of biological processes, most particularly reproductive processes, in forming his theory.

There are none, as best I can tell.