more from this thinker
|
more from this text
Single Idea 7295
[filed under theme 14. Science / C. Induction / 3. Limits of Induction
]
Full Idea
Maybe we should say that IF regularities are stable, only then is induction a reliable procedure.
Gist of Idea
Maybe induction is only reliable IF reality is stable
Source
Alistair Mitchell (talk [2006]), quoted by PG - Db (ideas)
A Reaction
This seems to me a very good proposal. In a wildly unpredictable reality, it is hard to see how anyone could learn from experience, or do any reasoning about the future. Natural stability is the axiom on which induction is built.
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]
|