It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Uniformity in nature, and the problem of induction.

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 06:59 AM
link   
"Induction is the glory of science and the scandal of philosophy."

-C.D. Broad

(All quoted sources will be from wiki unless otherwise specified)




The relationship between belief and knowledge is that a belief is knowledge if the belief is true, and if the believer has a justification (reasonable and necessarily plausible assertions/evidence/guidance) for believing it is true.





Justified true belief is a definition of knowledge that is most frequently credited to Plato and his dialogues.[16] The concept of justified true belief states that in order to know that a given proposition is true, one must not only believe the relevant true proposition, but one must also have justification for doing so. In more formal terms, a subject S knows that a proposition P is true if and only if:
P is true
S believes that P is true, and
S is justified in believing that P is true



This definition had some questions raised by the Gettier problems.

Roderick Chisholm's Sheep in the Field scenario:

Imagine a person standing outside a field and they see what they believe is a sheep in the field(but is actually a dog disguised as a sheep). They believe there is a sheep in the field, and in fact they are right because there is a sheep in the middle of a the field behind a hill. So according to the definition above the person has a justified true belief, but is does the person really Know there is a sheep in the field?

The answer to this is to define knowledge as a justified true belief that does not depend on false premises.

In the above scenario, the true premise in reality would be a person standing outside a field sees a dog disguised as a sheep. They believe that dog is a sheep in the field. This fixes the problem.

The logical validity of an argument is not based on its truth value, but rather its internal consistency. So it is important that as we discuss this everyone remembers we are looking for knowledge and therefore in order for you to have knowledge you cannot just present a logical argument, but it must also be based on true premises.

One other thing before I get in my topic that the readers need a very very firm understanding of is the logical fallacy known as begging the question. People get very upset when they try to understand the problem of induction, because in their minds they believe they are logically answering the question when they are actually presupposing that which they are trying to prove.

An example from wiki:

Person A: Why does Opium induce sleep?
Person B: Opium induces sleep because it has a soporific quality.

This response at first glance may seem accurate to someone who doesn't know exactly what a soporific quality is. However, soporific means that it induces sleep, so all person B has done is said "Opium induces sleep because it has a sleep inducing quality." The question already implies that Opium has sleep inducing qualities, just saying that those are there doesn't tell you why.

Begging the question is often very tricky, and sometimes the person might not even know that they are doing it.

Now to the problem of induction,



The problem of induction is the philosophical question of whether inductive reasoning leads to knowledge understood in the classic philosophical sense, since it focuses on the lack of justification for either:

Generalizing about the properties of a class of objects based on some number of observations of particular instances of that class (for example, the inference that "all swans we have seen are white, and therefore all swans are white," before the discovery of black swans) or
Presupposing that a sequence of events in the future will occur as it always has in the past (for example, that the laws of physics will hold as they have always been observed to hold). Hume called this the principle of uniformity of nature






Causality (also referred to as causation[1]) is the relation between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is understood as a physical consequence of the first.



Causality must be determined through inductive reasoning. Why? Because for any one cause, there are multiple effects. The actual effect can't be forseen by deducing about the cause.

For example: "A ball is thrown at a wall." One could conceive a number of different effects it could bounce off, it could go through the wall, the ball could disintegrate, ect. There is no reason to expect any one of these outcomes over the other. Only by examining many specific instances of the event can one predict what will actually occur.(Inductive reasoning) It is not necessary for causality in the future to resemble causality in the past. If ultimately all facts are determined by inductive reasoning, then inductive reasoning must be shown to be a justified true belief that does not depend on false premises(knowledge), or it is only belief one takes on faith.

Humes uses the fact that inductive reasoning assumes a valid connection between the proposition "I have found that such an object has always been attended with such an effect" and the proposition "I foresee that other objects which are in appearance similar will be attended with similar effects. " This can only be determined through inductive reasoning for, the same reasons above.

The challenge from Humes and the one that I pose here is for people to explain there world view and then to produce a deductive justification(reasonable and necessarily plausible assertions/evidence/guidance) for inductive reasoning. It will become apparent as people respond to this thread that inductive reasoning is only justified on an inductive assumption of the connection above(begging the question).

Without this necessary justification you only believe that inductive reasoning works, you do not know that inductive reasoning works. Therefore you cannot know that the universe is uniform because in order to justify that belief one must first justify inductive reasoning as inductive reasoning is the only way to justify uniformity in nature. I could get philosophically vicious and say that the only reason you know your memory works is based on an inductive assumption, and therefore without justification for inductive reasoning you cannot KNOW your memory is accurate, but you can only BELIEVE your memory is accurate. The same could even be said for your senses as the only reason you know they work is based on an inductive assumption, and therefore without justification of inductive reasoning you cannot KNOW your senses are accurate, but you can only BELIEVE your senses are accurate. We will throw all of that out though for the sake of argument lol.

I posted this here, because this philosophical problem poses a major problem for the atheist, but not the theist.




posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 07:33 AM
link   
You have been reading Sye Ten Bruggencate's apologetics handbook. At least be honest and admit that you have read his material and you know of him. I am very familiar with his arguments and they are very simple to discard. First, inductive reasoning is not just thinking a problem through with your mind. It requires evidence. There is no evidence for god. Therefore, the theist who insists that god is real is not using inductive reasoning to back his claim that god is real.

I am happy to talk about this topic, but you have to be honest in the discussion. Your own quoted definition of inductive reasoning explicitly says that evidence is needed to come to a reasonable conclusion. You cannot state it and also avoid it. All you have to do is present this god for examination. Then we can use inductive reasoning to discern whether any claims about it are true. That is how it works. With no god to present, you cannot possibly be using reason to back any claim you make of him.


a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb


edit on 31-10-2014 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 08:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver

I've got work so I will have to respond to the majority of this later . I have never heard of him. I first heard this argument presented by Jeff durbin that is also were my first encounter with tag. So no I dont know that guy. All the above information comes from David Hume's and Bertrand Russell

Also you are attacking me like I don't agree with what I have already said. All I have said is that this poses a problem for the atheist not the theist. And you just started jumping to.all kinds of conclusions about how I would respond.
edit on 31-10-2014 by ServantOfTheLamb because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 08:21 AM
link   
I don't know how you could have possibly missed the connection between jeff durbin and sye ten brugencate. They regularly appear together and are closely involved with their work. They did a radio show together. Here is a link.

m.facebook.com...

I never said anything about how you would respond. I simply showed where your argument is flawed. You made a claim that inductive reasoning is a problem for atheists and not theists. I showed that the crux of the matter falls on lack of evidence. Your lack of evidence to support your claim of a god.

This brand of apologetics is called presuppositional apologetics. It pre supposes that god is real without any evidence. It is in the name.


a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb


edit on 31-10-2014 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-10-2014 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I also love that your first quote is from C.D. Broad. He was a brilliant analytical thinker and a famously outspoken agnostic and homosexual, at a time when homosexuality was very much illegal. Kudos to him, a genuine philosophic hero. He was definitely not a christian, even though he gained most of his higher education from christian institutions. He has many books and papers to pick quotes from, but you decided to pick one which mocks your side of the argument.


"Induction is the glory of science and the scandal of philosophy."


Since religion is a philosophy, he is clearly stating that inductive reasoning is the scandal of religious thinking. How could you have misinterpreted that quote to mean anything else?

That is now two points out of your OP where your lack of proper research has been pointed out. My suggestion is to do your homework before posting threads and stop copying other peoples work without fully understanding it.

Another bit of advice is to read up on C.D. Broad. He is brilliant and makes the best arguments for what inductive reasoning is.

www.ditext.com...

en.m.wikipedia.org...
edit on 31-10-2014 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

You're SO focused on making the atheist "wrong", it seems you'll try just about anything. Your philosophical problem poses absolutely no problem for me because I'm not afraid to say that I don't know everything. I don't have to know every nuance of the beginning of our existence, why we're here or what happens when we die. I'm comfortable saying that I don't actually know.

Theism - Belief
Gnosticism - Knowledge

Here's a video you may find interesting.



www.youtube.com...
edit on 10/31/2014 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)

edit on 10/31/2014 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 09:34 AM
link   
Your vid is not working for me.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 10:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Woodcarver

I've got work so I will have to respond to the majority of this later . I have never heard of him. I first heard this argument presented by Jeff durbin that is also were my first encounter with tag. So no I dont know that guy. All the above information comes from David Hume's and Bertrand Russell

Also you are attacking me like I don't agree with what I have already said. All I have said is that this poses a problem for the atheist not the theist. And you just started jumping to.all kinds of conclusions about how I would respond.


you said this:

"I could get philosophically vicious and say that the only reason you know your memory works is based on an inductive assumption, and therefore without justification for inductive reasoning you cannot KNOW your memory is accurate, but you can only BELIEVE your memory is accurate. The same could even be said for your senses as the only reason you know they work is based on an inductive assumption, and therefore without justification of inductive reasoning you cannot KNOW your senses are accurate, but you can only BELIEVE your senses are accurate."

deductive reasoning according to wikipedia: "reasoning in which the premises seek to supply strong evidence for (not absolute proof of) the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is supposed to be certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is supposed to be probable, based upon the evidence given."

in other words, sacrificing a negligible but existent possibility in favor of greater evidence to the contrary. i dont see how this is a problem concerning atheists...although i do see how your argument reflects a habit among spiritualists to take a minute possibility and inflate it to overhwleming probability to make their opinions look more dignified in the face of actual science.

i could get vicious as well and point out that everything you just laid down as being problematic for atheists also applies to theism. in other words, you can only BELIEVE that your senses (and therefore your spiritual experiences) are accurate. but i wont point that ou - oh wait.



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Your vid is not working for me.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic



The "&" sign was the problem
edit on 10/31/2014 by Klassified because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Klassified

I changed it to the link. Here:

www.youtube.com...



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Great post. It's a question of authority. Compare This Thread (Defining the Mind) to what you are saying here.

Duct means to lead. We use the word ducting to denote a conduit that leads the flow of something in one direction. Induction is the flow of something inside. Compare to this thread: How Phoenician Reveals Babel

Induction is a comparison of universal archetype. Each time you find a universal truth, it appears in a mirror. You then make the choice between by knowing that only one reflection can be true. The other is a mirror. In the end, the determination of the true must adhere to the will reflected in nature, which is the first archetype of the monad. What is that true reflection? Giving and Receiving. All mirrored points of reflection can be deduced by simply knowing that positive or neutral is nature's primary point of unity. Philosophy grappled with the question of unity with multiplicity in all levels of existence.

Example:

Aleister Crowley "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law"

Jesus - Matthew 22

37 Yeshua answered him, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the greatest and most important commandment. 39 The second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as you love yourself.’ 40 All of Moses’ Teachings and the Prophets depend on these two commandments.”
How Can David’s Son Be David’s Lord?

41 While the Pharisees were still gathered, Yeshua asked them, 42 “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?”

---He asks a question here to help us identify the Son. Who's Son is He?

They answered him, “David’s.”

43 He said to them, “Then how can David, guided by the Spirit, call him Lord? David says,

44 ‘The Lord said to my Lord,
“Take the highest position in heaven
until I put your enemies under your control.”’

45 If David calls him Lord, how can he be his son?”

46 No one could answer him, and from that time on no one dared to ask him another question.

---Why could they not deduce this? They didn't realize that Yahweh is the Son of God, Adam First and Adam Last. Induction is also a word we use when referring to people who are focused into one stream of leadership. What is the highest position in Heaven? The Right hand of God, or the Son that is at the right hand of God.

Whose Son is He?

Elohim's Son (Son of the Father in Genesis 1). That God is the God of Love and keeps NO records of wrongs. Why? Positive is the right side of truth, the right hand of God and the right way to determine the truth.

It's the deduction we can make from the induction flowing from the Aleph to Tav. Aleph Tav (Plowman's Mark)


edit on 31-10-2014 by AlephBet because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: AlephBet

you post as though citing yourself is doing anything to improve your credibility. i hate to burst your bubble, but you are only hurting yourself.



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: AlephBet

I cannot deduce any points you ever try to make.

Serious question. Is english your second language? You often bring up hebrew so i was wondering.



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: AlephBet

you post as though citing yourself is doing anything to improve your credibility. i hate to burst your bubble, but you are only hurting yourself.


Ad Hominem unless you quote me, then show why you stand in the position you take. Apart from this, you have simply given an empty opinion with no platform from which to stand. Using me as your subject is a fallacy unless you state why. Your words are simply off topic. My words were on topic and useful to the subject. Try quoting me, then giving your own view from a credible foundation.


edit on 31-10-2014 by AlephBet because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: AlephBet

I cannot deduce any points you ever try to make.

Serious question. Is english your second language? You often bring up hebrew so i was wondering.



Which of my words should I explain? Quote me, then ask a question.



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver

."You made a claim that inductive reasoning is a problem for atheists and not theists. I showed that the crux of the matter falls on lack of evidence. Your lack of evidence to support your claim of a god. "

When the Christian poses the argument it is a Reductio ad absurdum. The argument itself is what the Christian is producing as evidence for God. The presupposition of God is axiomatic in this case. God exist because refuting he exist leaves you with absurdity. (Reductio ad absurdum)




I also love that your first quote is from C.D. Broad. He was a brilliant analytical thinker and a famously outspoken agnostic and homosexual, at a time when homosexuality was very much illegal. Kudos to him, a genuine philosophic hero. He was definitely not a christian, even though he gained most of his higher education from christian institutions. He has many books and papers to pick quotes from, but you decided to pick one which mocks your side of the argument.


Doesn't matter what his belief were, and the quote meant all philosophy not just metaphysical philosophy. I also have already told you that none of the information above came from Durbin. All of the information above came from David Hume's and Bertrand Russell(who is also an atheist).



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic



Your philosophical problem poses absolutely no problem for me because I'm not afraid to say that I don't know everything.


You don't understand the problem of induction if you think that just because you claim to not know that it isn't a problem for you. You cannot justify how you know your car will turn left when you attempt to turn, unless you first justify your use of inductive reasoning(see definition of knowledge). You cannot justify how you know that when you touch fire your hand will burn unless you can justify inductive reasoning....it definitely poses a problem because it reduces the atheistic world view to absurdity proving it to be false, unless otherwise justified.



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm




i could get vicious as well and point out that everything you just laid down as being problematic for atheists also applies to theism. in other words, you can only BELIEVE that your senses (and therefore your spiritual experiences) are accurate


The theist can justify inductive reasoning, and therefore none of that is an issues for the theist.




, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is supposed to be probable


Is the law of gravity supposed to be probable, and if so how can you justify the belief that the gravitational constant will remain the same tomorrow as it is today. You could argue that it is probable based on past and present experience, but even that leaves you with a probability based on presupposed inductive reasoning, and therefore only begs the question.



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 04:34 PM
link   
You quoted him. But now that i pointed out what his quote meant, it's not important anymore? Come on.


Inductive reasoning requires that you have evidence to induct your reasoning from. It in itself is certainly not evidence for god. You would still have to find and present this god to examine so that you could use inductive reasoning. What is so hard to understand about this? It says so in your OP.

About turning your car? The reasoning comes from actually studying the physical mechanical parts of a car to deduce how it works. Where is the god so that we can study him and compare him to your claims.


a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Just start with the first sentence and then go to the second. I Know other people have pointed out that they don't understandand what your saying. I think you are trying to use too much symbolism. A problem i usually notice when one is trying to get their point across in a language they are not skilled at using. Your ideas are un decipherable.

reply to: AlephBet




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join