It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

How does your world view justify the use of inductive reasoning?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 05:26 AM
a reply to: Ghost147

Again, you're trying to make a point here about how nothing can really be absolute, even though that point is obvious. So why make the point in the first place?

That wasn't the point. The point was that there is no certainty at all without an explanation for the problem of induction. Maybe you should have read the full post before responding as I discussed probability in this section as well, and I stated that the problem of induction ruins any logical reason for believing we can gain knowledge from probability.

What are you even talking about? Induction intrinsically uses probability! We have statistics for a reason, it's not to claim something is definitely going to happen because we have a record of it usually happening, it claims that something will probably happen because it usually happened previously.

It is completely logical to accept statistical evidence to base future events on.

Yes inductive reasoning uses probability to reach a general conclusion, but probability also uses inductive reasoning to reach a conclusion in statistics so no it isn't logical at all that is why people say "induction is the wonder of Science, and the scandal of Philosophy." You're first three responses are all about how all I am saying is that nothing is absolutely certain. This is from the OP:

Now one might argue that we do not know anything for certain, but we can infer what is most probable, yet the problem of induction even applies here. To say something is probable is to make the claim that some occurrence of A is often associated with some outcome B, therefore we have good reason to believe that an occurrence of A will be accompanied by B, but this again begs the question. The questions would the become what reason do we have for believing some sequence of past observed instances in time will gives us any information about a fresh instance in time. The instinct again is to say because it always has, yet this is not a logically sound basis so we must look else where.

So no that was not my claim. My claim was that without a justification for inductive reasoning we have no certainty. We would have no logical reason to "look both ways before we cross the street". No logical reason for why we wake up everyday without the fear of floating off the earth or being crushed by a sudden shift in gravity.

In your very first paragraph you couple 'Science' as being a world view. That's not me being careless with my reading, it's pretty evident that is what you meant. If you truly believe that science is not a world view, then simply acknowledge your first paragraph is written in a misleading way.

Its not and the quoted position explains why it is not. From OP:

Inductive reasoning is ultimately the foundation of all world views. It is at the foundation of science and all most every act that we do, yet most world views do not have the foundation to justify belief in the principle of induction.

Now lets look at this sentence. Inductive reasoning is ultimately the foundation of all world views. Meaning inductive reasoning is a foundational belief for everyone, including myself. Now ask why is inductive reasoning a foundational belief for everyone? Because it is at the foundation of Science(the process we use to gain knowledge about the world) and all most every act we do(Such as avoiding fire or breathing in copious amounts of water). If I was going to talk about a world view their I wouldn't have used the word Science I would have used the word Naturalism or Materialism. Then we come to the statement that most world views do not have the foundation to justify belief in the principle of induction. This should show you that I do not think induction is the only foundational belief in a world view, but it is definitely a part of all of our foundations as we use it constantly to function within reality it may not be the lowest portion of the foundation but it is definitely in there somewhere..

So you're saying that Inductive reasoning is the foundation to all world views, but not yours?

I refer you to the last statement.

I can't tell if you're professing your belief that there are "Functional Designs by nature [that] are made with the intent to function in a particular way." or you believe that scientists claim that? could you elaborate?

Because scientists don't claim that Nature is capable of intending anything. It's not a conscious thing.

Simple misunderstanding. I did not mean nature as in Mother Nature. Maybe it would be easier if I said the essence of a functional design is that it is made with the intent to function in a particular way.

The eye has a purpose, to see. It had no planning, it had no intention, and we can see how it arises without magic. Thus, it cuts out the need for a designer

I would disagree with that statement. You don't need magic but you do need to design to say it has a purpose which is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. I think what you meant to say was the eye has a function and that function is to produce sight. The fact that the eye functions as a vehicle for sight doesn't disprove the existence or need for a designer. If you and I had never seen a watch before we could study it and determine the metal it was made of the way its gears works and the way the hands moved but would those mechanisms every bring us to the idea that the watch was designed? No because when talking about a designer you are talking about the existence of an agent and the only thing I can think of the denotes the existence of an agent is the existence of information.

But don't go around claiming that this god built anything in this universe other than whatever came before it, because we do actually know the naturally occurring processes that require to form the things such as planets, galaxies, variation in life, so on and so forth

This was not an argument for the existence of God. It was my answer to the OP. It wasn't me trying to convince you of anything. Cool you know how certain things in the world function, and you are saying because you know how they function they could not have been designed to function that way. Lets use that logic on something else, like a computer. There is a computer you study it and figure out exactly the way everything works. By your logic we would have to conclude that because we know the way a computer functions it couldn't have been designed to function that way and did not have a designer. Obviously that would be wrong.

posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 05:52 AM
a reply to: Ghost147

You can make up whatever you want about your definition of god. It makes no difference until you begin to state that it had some hand in creating something within the universe that we already have observed has a naturally forming process.

Again this had nothing to do with me trying to convince you of anything. You said, "Your logic is also flawed because you believe God to be Eternal. So, using your very same logical that made you come to the conclusion you did about design, we could similarly state 'If the designer does not need a designer to create it, why should other things?' " I was simply showing you that my logic was not flawed but rather yours is. I explained to you why and if you can't understand that asking why do temporal beings have to be created, if a timeless being didn't need to created is ridiculous you are just lost. Do you really not see how the logic of that statement doesn't follow at all?

Again, the foundation of your argument with inductive reasoning is meaningless because no one is claiming absolute knowledge!

Refer you back up to my last post...the claim is that without a justification for induction you have no certainty.

I'm not telling you what to belief. However, if you say "this and that is a matter of fact" when we can prove otherwise, I will disprove your claims.

Seeing as how we were talking about my world view and my answer the the OP those things are a matter of fact because I was talking about MY BELIEFS. You cannot prove that I believe your not even paying attention to what is said to you. The topic of the OP was not prove your world view to be correct it was just to show that it had a logical basis for believing inductive reasoning to be something useful in reality for gaining knowledge.

At least you can admit the foundation on your world view relies on no form of reason at all.

Except I did no such thing. Seems to me you are here to stroke your ego rather than actually have a conversation.

I have, and you already responded to it.

My universal view is that nature begets nature, subject to change upon further observations.

This tells me nothing about your foundation and how it relates to induction. How are you defining nature? How does that give you a reason to believe inductive reasoning will allow you to gain knowledge?

Theistic people do tend to forget that many words in English can describe several different things. Faith is a common misconception among theists.

I don't think you know how conversation works. Words have usages, they do not have intrinsic meanings. You don't get to tell me what I mean when I use a word. The point in me telling you my definition was to show you that you again were misrepresenting my position.

In your case, yes. That would be what religious faith would be.

You don't know me or my thoughts you are just being ridiculous now. That is not my form of faith so quit trying to force it on me.

Yes, that is another form of faith. However, that is not the correct terminology for religious faith, which is, in fact, a belief without proof.

Do you really not see how willfully ignorant your being? I mean do you even read what your responding to? I give you a Biblical definition of Faith, and you respond with "Yes, that is another form of faith. However, that is not the correct terminology for religious faith, which is, in fact, a belief without proof. " My definition came from my religious text and it is the one you just agreed was an actual usage of the term. So now with your new knowledge maybe you should go reconsider what the bible is saying when it tells us to have faith.
edit on 14-12-2015 by ServantOfTheLamb because: typo

new topics
<< 1   >>

log in