Induction and Deduction

[Owl]

Originally Posted by dissonance

"Why should we trust them?"

Well, we don't really have a choice. I mean, we cannot justify them, because in order to justify them, we must use them as premises.

A hidden premise in all induction is "the future resembles the past". There is no way to justify this premise without using it.

Rejecting that premise, though, leaves us worse off (from a pragmatic standpoint). We must just accept it, as evolution pretty much guarantees that it makes us more fit.

There is no way to get to objective truths as a human. It's a limitation we cannot get around. It's unsatisfying, yes, but what can we do?

What if nirvana can only be only be achieved once one leaves reason behind? What if the realization that ultimate reality cannot be grasped by human reason is the first step toward the only source of lasting satisfaction?

Whether you choose to accept this or that premise depends on what you want, and what you want is determined by what you believe to be real. If you believe the world to be an illusion due to ignorance, and that becoming aware that all is one, and that therefore you are eternal, will release you from all suffering, then you will not accept that the future necessarily resembles the past, because the world in which we use this premise is illusory.

So, from a pragmatic standpoint, how do you know that you are not worse off for believing that the future will resemble the past?

[evan]

When I say pragmatic, I'm using sort of the societal norm definition.

But yeah, there's no objective "better" or "worse" off.

It seems kinda silly not to accept that premise (that the future resembles the past), though. Without it, you can't assume that if you jump off a building you'll fall, or if you stab yourself you'll get hurt, or if you put your car in reverse it will go backward, etc.

[Jack Flak]

Does this make sense?: Conclusions based on induction may be true; Those based on deduction are true. As long as the foundations are true, which is a maybe in "pop-logic."

[evan]

Conclusions based on either are no more likely to be true, in my opinion. "as long as the foundations are true" is a huge huge given.

You need to use induction to get to the premises of deduction. But induction is just a form of deduction anyway...

[Jack Flak]

In that case, it sounds like you already knew nothing was 100% certain, and I wonder why the thread was started. Once I contemplate something dry, I move on.

EDIT: Nevermind, painkillers, LOL.

[evan]

Well, I wasn't talking about certainty. I thought it was a pretty new idea to say that induction is the same as deduction, just with hidden premises.

No one has responded to that idea, though.

(Yeah, I was definitely on some painkillers, though, lol...)

[Jack Flak]

Originally Posted by dissonance

Well, I wasn't talking about certainty. I thought it was a pretty new idea to say that induction is the same as deduction, just with hidden premises.

No one has responded to that idea, though.

Well they aren't "the same," but you do have to take things for granted to make any decisions at all. Deduction only has one unknown: Are things as they seem? Induction has indefinite unknowns: Every case not tested. This probably wasn't the answer you were looking for, but it's all I got.

[evan]

Yeah you missed the point. Probably means I didn't explain clearly.

My point is: induction is merely a form of deduction.

Here are two arguments that are the same, but one is "inductive" and one is "deductive":

The sun has risen every day of my life
------------------------------------
The sun will rise tomorrow (inductive)


The sun has risen every day of my life
Things that happen every day will happen the next day
------------------------------------
The sun will rise tomorrow (deductive)


My point is, they are actually the same thing. Induction just shorthands premises that we take for granted. Doesn't mean they're not there though.

[Jack Flak]

Your second premise in your deductive argument is pure induction, so I disapprove!

[evan]

Argh! Can't tell if you're just fucking with me.

You probably are.