Update from study-group on inductive method of thinking Last section of the text begins this week. It has been a very good learning time for me. Hope the same is true for everybody in this study-group as well. Questions from this week and sample answer Here are questions from the section on The structure of inductive reasoning Q1. How is this section similar and different from previous sections? Q2. What is reasoning? What might be the need to introduce this concept at this point? Q3. What role logic plays for reasoning in general, and deductive reasoning in particular? Q4. How is inductive reasoning different from deductive reasoning, when it comes to integrating the premises to form conclusion? Q5. What is the problem of induction? Q6. How does study for reaching first level generalizations contribute to the solution of problem of induction? Q7. What leads can we get to the solution by studying Benjamin Franklins kite experiment and related facts? Q8. Summarize similarity and difference between first level and higher level generalizations? Q9. Elaborate on the conceptual framework that Franklin had to integrate when he did kite experiment? Q10. What is the role of integration and logic in developing inductive generalizations? Q11. What is the difference between premises of induction and deduction? Q12. Why problem of induction has been elusive for so long? ---------------------------------------- Sample answer is as follows Q3. What role logic plays for reasoning in general, and deductive reasoning in particular? Ans: From TLL Rand defines logic as the art of non-contradictoty identification. If one denies the conclusion of a logical argument, one is contradicting the earlier information from which the conclusion was inferred, and is thereby violating the law of identity. But a contradiction is impossible; hence, if the premises are true, the conclusion in question must be true. This is the pattern and principle of all valid reasoning, whether deductive or inductive. MY FURTHER ANALYSIS Continuing method of giving my inferences before I see writers(though I have done one round of preliminary study before), here is how I think logic is applied to first level concepts and generalizations. We see two tables with chair as a foil. The percept becomes prior knowledge. This prior knowledge is used to denote a symbol for all similar concretes that one designated as table from various perceptual frames. If we now deny that all the units subsumed by concept table be classified together using symbol table, we are denying that various tables seen before are perceptually similar. But since these are indeed perceptually similar, so we cannot deny the concept table, that is the units it subsumes. Similarly for the first level generalization pushing rolls the ball. If we deny this generalization, we are denying all / or at least some of prior knowledge we used in forming this generalization. That is either the corresponding first level concepts or the perception of the phenomena. The cases for denying the first level concepts in generalization will be similar to that of table, their units are indeed perceptually similar when seen with chair. And we cannot deny the fact that we indeed perceive various balls to roll on pushing(under normal circumstances). [Only people who will have trouble denying the denial are people who accepted generalization because somebody said so, without further integrating with their own knowledge or inquiring with the person]. FROM TLL The application of this principle to deductive inference is straight-forward. In applying a generalization to a particular case, we are making explicit in the conclusion information that was included implicitly in the premise from the outset. In this sense, a deductive conclusion contains nothing logically new. That is why, in deduction, it is self-contradictory to affirm the premises and deny the conclusion. For example, I could not reason All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore Socrates is not mortal. This is tantamount to stating All men are mortal - and there is one who isnt. In the valid syllogism, by contrast, when I conclude that Socrates is mortal, I am doing no more than remaining true to my premise. MY FURTHER ANALYSIS The conclusion Socrates is mortal can be denied only if we say that Socrates is not man or All men are not mortal. Thus it is a reasoned conclusion, since it follows necessarily from arguments. And this has prior knowledge, which are two assertions. The prior knowledge for inductive generalization are lower level concepts and generalizations, or ultimately percepts. ----------------------------------- Details of the study-group are here - studentofdrpeikoff.blogspot.in/2014/06/announcing-study-group-on-inductive.html
Posted on: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 08:59:39 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015