more from this thinker     |     more from this text

Single Idea 19236

[filed under theme 14. Science / C. Induction / 3. Limits of Induction ]

Full Idea

Induction can never afford the slightest reason to think that a law is without an exception.

Gist of Idea

Induction can never prove that laws have no exceptions

Source

Charles Sanders Peirce (Reasoning and the Logic of Things [1898], II)

Book Ref

Peirce,Charles Sanders: 'Reasoning and the Logic of Things', ed/tr. Ketner,K.L. [Harvard 1992], p.140

A Reaction

Part of the general Humean doubts about induction, but very precisely stated, and undeniable. You can then give up on universal laws, or look for deeper reasons to justify your conviction that there are no exceptions. E.g. observe mass, or Higgs Boson.

The 32 ideas with the same theme [why induction cannot justify generalised truths]:

12293 We say 'so in cases of this kind', but how do you decide what is 'of this kind'? [Aristotle]
6027 From the fact that some men die, we cannot infer that they all do [Philodemus]
1886 If you don't view every particular, you may miss the one which disproves your universal induction [Sext.Empiricus]
5053 The instances confirming a general truth are never enough to establish its necessity [Leibniz]
2199 Reason cannot show why reliable past experience should extend to future times and remote places [Hume]
2201 Induction can't prove that the future will be like the past, since induction assumes this [Hume]
2202 Fools, children and animals all learn from experience [Hume]
2204 All inferences from experience are effects of custom, not reasoning [Hume]
2203 If we infer causes from repetition, this explains why we infer from a thousand objects what we couldn't infer from one [Hume]
19235 How does induction get started? [Peirce]
19236 Induction can never prove that laws have no exceptions [Peirce]
19251 The worst fallacy in induction is generalising one recondite property from a sample [Peirce]
22654 We can't know if the laws of nature are stable, but we must postulate it or assume it [James]
5390 Chickens are not very good at induction, and are surprised when their feeder wrings their neck [Russell]
5392 It doesn't follow that because the future has always resembled the past, that it always will [Russell]
5394 We can't prove induction from experience without begging the question [Russell]
5191 We can't use the uniformity of nature to prove induction, as that would be circular [Ayer]
7779 There is no such thing as induction [Popper, by Magee]
17685 Induction aims at 'all Fs', but abduction aims at hidden or theoretical entities [Armstrong]
13607 If events are unconnected, then induction cannot be solved [Ellis]
6952 Induction is 'defeasible', since additional information can invalidate it [Harman]
15255 Conjunctions explain nothing, and so do not give a reason for confidence in inductions [Harré/Madden]
15270 Hume's atomic events makes properties independent, and leads to problems with induction [Harré/Madden]
16823 Standard induction does not allow for vertical inferences, to some unobservable lower level [Lipton]
15713 The first million numbers confirm that no number is greater than a million [Kaplan/Kaplan]
15695 Children make errors in induction by focusing too much on categories [Gelman]
15694 Children overestimate the power of a single example [Gelman]
6791 If Hume is right about induction, there is no scientific knowledge [Bird]
6790 Anything justifying inferences from observed to unobserved must itself do that [Bird]
19668 Hume's question is whether experimental science will still be valid tomorrow [Meillassoux]
7295 Maybe induction is only reliable IF reality is stable [Mitchell,A]
14570 Nature is not completely uniform, and some regular causes sometimes fail to produce their effects [Mumford/Anjum]