Talk:Induction

This article does not present an objective presentation of the subject but the author's editorial opinion. First off, others would disagree that Quine "debunked" the analytic/synthetic distinction. Second, others would disagree that the Quine-Duhem thesis refutes Popper. Those who cite the Quine-Duhem thesis apparently go by second hand sources. In "The Library of Living Philosophers" series, in the two volumes devoted to Karl Popper, Quine and Popper were in large agreement. In Quine's paper, Quine brought up Quine-Duhem and Quine HIMSELF did NOT think it posed a big problem for Popper. Go read it for yourself! -63.98.140.237 Sep 13, 2003

Wikipedia dictates a NPOV policy, not an objectivity policy. Objectivity is a myth. The article does present a POV in POV fashion when it should present the POV in NPOV fashion. -B 22:18, Oct 23, 2003 (UTC)

I don't particularly like the way I've rephrased the opening paragraph in my last edit, but I think it is better than its predecessor. I'm just trying to shoot for more specificity here. -B 22:18, Oct 23, 2003 (UTC)

Well said, B. In point of fact, Popper expresses what later became known as the “Quine-Duhem thesis” in section 19 of The Logic of Scientific Discovery, preceding Quine’s Two Dogmas. Only a naive reading of Popper would lead to the conclusion given in this article Banno 19:53, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Broke down the Quine/Hume/Popper paragraph. My changes at least have the advantage of not actually being wrong (I hope!!). Is there a purpose to retaining the discussion of the analytic/synthetic distinction? At the least, it needs something to point to its relevance. Personally, I liked the old introduction. Banno 22:59, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I'm not stuck on my new intro and the previous one was actually a common way of introducing the subject. I think a better intro than the previous one nd mine can be written, but I don't object to reverting to the previous intro. Re: analytic/synthetic distinction, I see where the material is leading to...to Quine and the problem of induction...that material is actually more pertinent to the problem of induction article but it is in this article rather than the other. —B 04:36, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)

---

Proposal to merge articles

Since there is no clear distinction between this article and problem of induction, Unless there is a loud protest, I'll move the stuff from inductive reasoning to here in a few days. Banno 10:54, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

My previous response to Banno here was in error as noted on the talk page to the problem of induction. I do not protest. B 21:54, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)

---

No

Induction not a "problem" for science?

I have seen no justification for the claim that science depends on inductive reasoning, defined in such a way that it has a "problem". No reputable scientist should claim that a particular hypothesis or theory is the only explanation for a set of observations. It is merely the "best" explanation -- by such criteria as Ockham's Razor -- known to the scientist. For any set of observations, there are presumably an infinite set of potential explanations. You may argue that Ockham's Razor is derived by induction, but it is a probabilistic statement, not an absolute dictum of truth. Science does not predict that the sun will come up tomorrow; it states that we can expect such a result if the current theory is approximately true. Where is the problem? Fairandbalanced 21:12, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It’s not a problem for science, but for the philosophy of science. Induction is not deductively justified - of course – so is there some other way of justifying it? Perhaps hypothetico-deductive method describes the problems with the method you describe more clearly?

Do you know of a scientific article in which someone dismisses a theory on the basis of a probabilistic statement derived in some way from Occam’s razor? I’d love to see one. Banno 20:07, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Fairandbalanced, all scientific theory (and knowledge in general) relies on the principle of the uniformity of nature which is based on induction. The problem is that there is no philosophical justification for induction (and by implication for uniformity); it is, like Occam's Razor, merely a principle of preference. Induction is a problem not only for science, but knowledge in general. We may prefer that the universe be uniform, but there is no justification that the universe is uniform (nor that it is not uniform). All that we "know" is what we have experienced so far...and our future experience may give us reason to "know" otherwise. Notice "know" is always tentative...THAT is the problem; there is no absolute, certain knowledge. A far greater problem to knowledge is that posed by confirmation holism and its counter-part, ontological relativity. These seem to be related to the problem of induction, but go beyond it...but I'm not sure. B 21:54, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)

---

Fine. Then it should not be touted as a problem for science, but as a problem for all knowledge. Science makes predictions based on the assumption that its theories are adequate representations of reality, and that assumption can be falsified by a contrary result. What field of science asserts knowledge of absolute truth?

Ockham's Razor apparently was used frequently in debates regarding continental drift during the first half of the twentieth century. It also rules out a lot of pseudoscience and paranormal rubbish. I'm sure it has appeared elsewhere. Fairandbalanced 21:50, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

The currently most well-known inductive logic system being Stephen Wolfram's A New Kind of Science. Just as deductive logic systems differ in ephemera, so will inductive logic systems. What's inate is that those who naturally prefer inductive logic (those said to be right-brain in orientation), recognize the symmetries (as stated in B's comment in this section). Another example of an inductive logic system would be Buckminster Fuller's tetrahedra. Incredibly noxious both induction and deduction. Flirting with delirium hinders my ability to gather more knowledge.

Knowledge in general doesn't rely on uniformity of nature. Specific theoretically-derived ones do. I may be wrong about this. It would be nice to have split-brained subjects to fiddle with. Either that, or there are at least 2 different major kinds of uniformity of nature, a deductive one, and an inductive one. (A shape-based one, and a cause-and-effect oriented one -- the former generally being predicated and oriented to complexity theory to attack it's problems, the latter creating and orienting to chaos theory to explain and counter it's problems) (non-linearity vs linearity -- to a significant extent).

Profoundly more geometrical vs algebraic. --24.22.227.53 01:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

So far this seems to be an interesting page highlighting some of the approach differences. --24.22.227.53 02:13, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

No

Redirect

There is no point in the re-direct unless there is some content to go into induction; the re-direct disenfranchises the dozens of pages that link to induction. If someone wishes to keep the new definition, they also need to fix each and every one of the re-directs. It would have been courteous to at least suggest the re-direct in the discussion pages and wait for comment; the present state is just making work for others. I’ll allow a bit of time for discussion, but I think the re-direct should be reverted. Banno 07:51, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)

NO

One small thing

"Induction could also be across space rather than time, e.g. conclusions about the whole universe from what we observe in our galaxy or national economic policy based on past economic preformance."

The second of these examples is clearly across time rather than space and I think it should be removed or modified.

-Talnova

Error in summary?

The end of the first sentence of the summary current reads, "the conclusion of an argument is very unlikely to be true, but not certain, given the premises."

Surely that should be "likely", not "unlikely"?

wikispaces : phaedrus

Confusion on the Examples?

The logic examples in the articles on inductive logic and deductive logic are the same, and was a little confusing for me because in the text it claims the types of reasoning seem to opposed in some way. Is there any way that the syllogisms could be changed or perhaps the reuse could be explained in the article? -- c0bra 16:10, November 18, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed - I think the logic example in the induction article is wrong, in that it is not an example of induction. That socrates is mortal given the preceding two assumptions is an example of deduction, not induction. Bmord 01:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I corrected these examples. One source was: http://www.thoughtware.com.au/philosophy/philref/PHILOS.25.html ... DoctorStrangelove 19:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation

I've put the most common meanings of "induction" in a separate section. These were the meanings I thought were most common, and the stats tool confirms that they have by far the majority of traffic. Sam Staton (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Electric and magnetic induction

Hello! Recently I edited the Induction disambiguation page. I agree that none of these 5 items is itself induction:

• Electromagnetic induction is not induction; it is the production of an emf across an electrical conductor in a changing magnetic field.
• Magnetic induction is not induction; it is B-field also known as magnetic flux density.
• Electrostatic induction is not induction; it is a redistribution of electric charge in an object, caused by the influence of nearby charges.
• Electric induction is not induction; it is D-field also known as electric displacement field.
• Forced induction is not induction; it is the usage of turbocharging or supercharging to increase the density of the intake air.

All these 5 terms were introduced in the XIXth century for some historical reasons. The usage of the word "induction" in the first 4 terms is somewhat misleading for new students. They often angrily ask me why those very different things are called by the same word. However, these terms were established and still are used in many books.

Of course, electromotive force is not a force. Coercive force is not a force either. Technically, a Guinea pig is not a pig, nor is it from Guinea. However, Wikipedia tries to help readers to find information about the terms they encounter in books regardless of the quality of the terms.

If you insist that Wikipedia should struggle for better terminology, I can add the word "obsolete" in these two definitions:

• Magnetic induction is the obsolete term for B-field also known as magnetic flux density.

...

• Electric induction is the obsolete term for D-field also known as electric displacement field.

"Do you agree with that?"Ufim (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the terms electric induction and magnetic induction exist as synonyms for the D and B fields (even if only in historical works) and users might try to look them up. I admit I was not fully aware of this when I reverted, but the question still is do they belong on the disambiguation page. Are either of those referred to simply as induction in sources? That seems unlikely to me, but feel free to offer sources. Are readers likely to type just "induction" in the search box when looking for one of these articles? They would almost certainly type "electric induction" or "magnetic induction" and the redirects would take them to the right place straight away. Having them as entries on the dab page is useless clutter and if my analysis is right, they fail WP:PARTIAL. In any event, you absolutely must not hide the true article titles with pipes on dab pages (MOS:DABPIPE). SpinningSpark 17:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)