At 5:18 you say "it is not an argument from the particular to the general" -- but isn't there a "hidden step" where you make the generalisation "the sun rises in the East every day" from which you then infer that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow? Just like scientists inducing the general rule "light increases with temperature" and then inferring the particular prediction "increasing the temperature will increase the light"?
A very clear and concise explanation of induction, regardless!
@ishwarrior Hey, thanks for the comment. On the point you make, I agree that as stated, it's a weak inductive argument, not a strong one. But your modification would make the final inference a deductive one, going from a general rule to a particular instance of that rule, and it would no longer be an example of an inductive argument. The question of what is necessary to make an inductive generlization strong is actually a deep one (I'm working on a tutorial course on this right now...).
@PhilosophyFreak so there are two steps: 1. induction 2. deduction. this distinction is actually very very important. many scientists nowadays are either ignorant or arrogant. either they are unaware of the first step, or hide step 1 from the public, selling it as "pure deduction". please help to educate future scientists properly, so that we don't get fucktards like Richard Dawkins.
This was incredibly helpful! Thank you!
BeatlesFan51620 1 year ago
Wonderful videos. Thank you.
Forkroute 1 year ago
my real name is John and I am left-handed you insensitive clod!
Steve2323ZX 1 year ago 5
@Steve2323ZX proof of the fallibility of inductive reasoning... :P
Dathinkingman 1 year ago
@Steve2323ZX YOU'RE THE CLOD! ...whatever that means *googling clod*
Traveler246 1 month ago
At 5:18 you say "it is not an argument from the particular to the general" -- but isn't there a "hidden step" where you make the generalisation "the sun rises in the East every day" from which you then infer that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow? Just like scientists inducing the general rule "light increases with temperature" and then inferring the particular prediction "increasing the temperature will increase the light"?
A very clear and concise explanation of induction, regardless!
ishwarrior 1 year ago
@ishwarrior Hey, thanks for the comment. On the point you make, I agree that as stated, it's a weak inductive argument, not a strong one. But your modification would make the final inference a deductive one, going from a general rule to a particular instance of that rule, and it would no longer be an example of an inductive argument. The question of what is necessary to make an inductive generlization strong is actually a deep one (I'm working on a tutorial course on this right now...).
PhilosophyFreak 1 year ago
@PhilosophyFreak I look forward to seeing that!
ishwarrior 1 year ago
@PhilosophyFreak so there are two steps: 1. induction 2. deduction. this distinction is actually very very important. many scientists nowadays are either ignorant or arrogant. either they are unaware of the first step, or hide step 1 from the public, selling it as "pure deduction". please help to educate future scientists properly, so that we don't get fucktards like Richard Dawkins.
Heissenburger 2 months ago
@Heissenburger
"many scientists nowadays are either ignorant or arrogant. either they are unaware of the first step, or hide step 1 from the public"
Name one scientist who does that.
"so that we don't get fucktards like Richard Dawkins"
At least Dawkins doesn't claim things will pop into being once you put them into neat syllogisms, unlike what people like William Craig seem to think.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 week ago
Fantastic explanation. Thanks!
cambo61 1 year ago