You’re an absolutely phenomenal teacher. I was so lost in my own philosophy class about what was inductive and what was deductive. You’re such a pleasure to listen to and you explain things so clearly without assuming that any of the terms used are understood. You made my learning experience much less painful. Thank you.
Respected Sir, I am really very grateful to you for your help... I am really very interested in logic and philosophy (focusing on epistemology and metaphysics). I am from Assam, India. And I live in a rural village here... I am just 16, but I have no formal degree... But, I am very interested in philosophy... I have been analysing epistemology and metaphysics for the last 3 months, and was / is especially determined to know what "reality" is, what "knowledge" is... I just don't still have a tool called "logic",which is as we know is very useful in philosophy. And, as I am living here in a rural village, I don't have anyone to help me... All that I do is self -study... My man motive is develop philosophy. And, at present, I am trying to think more philosophically and know (note: I don't know what I mean when I say "to know") other philosophical ideas. I am really grateful to you and really love your work... I owe a lot to you, dear sir... I am so much grateful to you... I hope I will further get help from you in this way... And, please, could you give me your email address or contact number-so that I can ask you more questions...
When you described forms of inductive reasoning, it felt to me like a partial list of logical fallacies :) Also with the watchmaker/analogy type of thinking - I can't help thinking that there are several things wrong with the reasoning: firstly an analogy (similar to what you call an interpretation or indeed to a scientific theory) is a model that may or may not fit... A History lecturer (I did maths & IT, but did other things on the side!) once said to me "analogies always break down", and maybe in history they do. But a second, major mistake it's the thinking "I can't think of any other explanation/model but that of a maker, therefore it must have a maker". This is a fallacy (I don't know if it has a name on those lists of logical fallacies). It's just stating the limits of our intelligence, a probability based on what we know - and of course 1) we don't know very much, and 2) probabilities change the more you know...
Hi there, Mark, thanks for providing this lecture. May I add a bit and ask a question. Induction involves the process of inducing which immediately raises red flags about its validity. The general definition of induction is that it is a process of inferring a principle or general law from observations of particular instances. This process has been critically scrutinized for over a century or three. The logical process of inference is a temporal sequence from an observation thru reasoning to the formulation of a principle. There is also a similar process of taking given facts and inferring or concluding a general law or principle. These processes are called 'generative induction' and the problem is whether it is an adequate inference, that is, whether all facts are considered. Another form of induction is enumerative induction where facts are compared with a general principle for the purpose of proof. This form of induction is actually deduction. The rub is that the so-called inductions were affected by the theory or principles in questions, and constituted theory laden perception. I just thought that the 'problem of induction' from Hume to Popper should be presented in the definition of induction since today induction is all but rejected in toto. As for deduction, should we abide by a meaning of deduction that is from authority or by convention. Aren't these suspect forms of deceptive deduction, where is the reasoning? Lastly, Kant defines causality as apriori, as a condition of sensibility. So, is causality deduction and if so why? I appreciate your distinction between statements and propositions, but is the distinction relevant, aren't we always dealing with propositions?
For causation, does it always have to be based in probability? If I say the rising sea levels are caused by global warming. That's something that's been scientifically proven so it's not subjective. Reading David Hume's interpretation confused me. Can someone help me out with this?
Can I send you money for the great service you're providing for sharing your knowledge? A check in the mail? Paypal? I mean, this is great stuff you're producing for the betterment of your viewers.
The example you gave of a woman being strangled was not an example of deduction but induction since it is not necessarily the case that the woman was strangled by something with beads but only highly probable. putting aside the issue of the implicit assumption in the insurmountability of the principle of sufficient reason, there are other conceivable scenarios that could explain the impressions on the women's neck, for instance, maybe the woman was poisoned and the marks were caused after the fact.
I would say that this is and inductive argument I think by analogy these statements point to the problem.? But also thank you for explaining what it is that I am reading.
I'm not sure how the example of strangulation is a deductive argument and not inductive argument.... The probability is very high that the death occured that way, but there is still a probability that it was not (for example, the criminal could have exchanged the necklace of the woman by another one very similar, therefore the death would have not been caused by the particular necklace in question). I would not put this one on the same level as a mathematical reasoning!
Fuck me, why none of the comments just wrote the answer to the question provided? It is an inductive argument, because it is based on experience (observation).
Why is it false to say that all deductive arguments go from general to the specific and why is it false to say that all inductive arguments go from specific to the general?
Some of this feels weak to me. I'm at 31:34, where you're arguing that causal arguments are inductive. But on the other hand, how do you know all men are mortal? Because everyone you're aware of in the past has eventually died. In that sense, *everything* is inductive. Everything we know we know because we've lived and experienced. I think the whole categorization falls apart. I could word your argument about the computer a different way. A) The electricity powering your computer flows through that switch. B) The switch must be closed to flow electricity. Therefore C) If you open the switch, you will stop the computer. So my reasoning is not *just* based on past observation. It's based on my knowledge of electronics. I think that logic is about the structure of the argument. The reliability of the claims is altogether independent of the argument structure. Our reasons for believing the premises is independent of the argument structure. Knowing that the sun will come up tomorrow, for me, is based on much, much more than simply having seen it come up every past day. It's based on my knowledge of physics and the dynamic state of the solar system (i.e., Earth is rotating and angular momentum is conserved). I really don't mean to be arguing that we shouldn't have the categories of deduction and induction. I'm just arguing that your way of explaining the difference seems to be missing something, and seems more related to our reasons for trusting the premises than to the structure of the argument. That feels "off" to me. I'll try to sum up. Your words on this matter imply to me that there is no such thing as deduction, because ultimately all of our knowledge of the world comes from experience, and extrapolation of that experience to the future. You also seem to be completely negating the value of science - what's the point of learning science if it doesn't bring you a more powerful ability to know what to expect in the future? How do I know that the way the Earth behaves isn't *really* to spin for 100 years, then stop for 100 years? That is, for all I know the sun *won't* come up tomorrow - this morning's sunrise could have been the last in the 100 year pattern. *Science* gives me the basis of my belief otherwise. Science *deepens* our knowledge of the world.
Sherlock doesn't deduce. Almost nothing is deduction. Deduction relies on internal consistency or agreement upon terms for its assuredness. Anything else, anything open and subject to future revision upon more info, is inductive. It's all degrees of probability.
