Folks who believe that "induction is impossible", can you clarify what you mean by that?
I can think of at least four (not quite mutually exclusive) possibilities.
I can think of at least four (not quite mutually exclusive) possibilities.
1. Predicting the future based on past data is a thing that has straightforwardly never happened.
As in, it is physically impossible for someone to reason thusly: "I think the sun will rise tomorrow, because it has risen ever day in the past."
As in, it is physically impossible for someone to reason thusly: "I think the sun will rise tomorrow, because it has risen ever day in the past."
I don't THINK this is what people mean, since that seems like an absurd proposition. But maybe I'm missing some nuance.
2. People APPEAR to reason inductively, but the appearance is misleading. In actuality, they are reasoning deductively (or in some other non-inductive way).
I’m not sure exactly what that would mean.
Something like “actually, you’re operating from a _theory_ that the future will be like the past, and your conclusion about the sun follows from that”?
Something like “actually, you’re operating from a _theory_ that the future will be like the past, and your conclusion about the sun follows from that”?
3. People do reason inductively all the time, but erroneously. It doesn’t actually work.
If it's this, I need more elaboration. Static forecasting famously works well in a bunch of situations. Does that not count as induction?
If it's this, I need more elaboration. Static forecasting famously works well in a bunch of situations. Does that not count as induction?
4. Induction is philosophically unjustified. We can’t really be said to have _knowledge_ derived via induction, because that knowledge would be only as justified as induction itself, and induction is either unjustified.
Is it any of those, or something else?
@threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
