display all the ideas for this combination of texts
3 ideas
| 8624 | Induction is merely psychological, with a principle that it can actually establish laws [Frege] |
| Full Idea: Induction depends on the general proposition that the inductive method can establish the truth of a law, or the probability for it. If we deny this, induction becomes nothing more than a psychological phenomenon. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884], §03 n) | |
| A reaction: The problem is that we can't seem to 'establish' the requisite proposition, even for probability, since probability is in part subjective. I think induction needs the premiss that nature has underlying uniformity, which we then tease out by observation. |
| 8626 | In science one observation can create high probability, while a thousand might prove nothing [Frege] |
| Full Idea: The procedure of the sciences, with its objective standards, will at times find a high probability established by a single confirmatory instance, while at others it will dismiss a thousand as almost worthless. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884], §10) | |
| A reaction: This thought is presumably what pushes theorists away from traditional induction and towards Bayes's Theorem (Idea 2798). The remark is a great difficulty for anyone trying to defend traditional induction. |
| 7295 | Maybe induction is only reliable IF reality is stable [Mitchell,A] |
| Full Idea: Maybe we should say that IF regularities are stable, only then is induction a reliable procedure. | |
| From: 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. |