Look Who it Was Random video

Re: The Problem of Induction?

1,105 views · Published 1 March 2008 · 7:53 · Indexed 21 September 2026

Channel: Footnotes2Plato · 2008 · Education

Watch on YouTube

How odd it is that anyone should not see that all observation must be for or against some view if it is to be of any service.
-Charles Darwin

$: if we think induction can give us certain knowledge, we're in for a surprise, or a bunch of surprises...

#: certain knowledge as opposed to what other type of knowledge? or certain knowledge as opposed to no knowledge?

$: as opposed to just asking a particular question and receiving its tailored answer

#: example?

$: i think induction can be saved if we just see it as sort of asking nature to behave in a certain way so that we can predict how it will react.
rather than seeing it as reaching in and taking some hidden truth out of nature, just see it as a dance move with a partner.

#: like it's a useful tool for something but probably not for truth in the way we're suggesting it be used?

$: right

#: the way im seeing it, induction is essentially an attempt to fill in a few blanks between reality & the language of logic

$: thats hume's way of framing it too i think,
and he being an empiricist said that it is a huge assumption. descartes thought it was just fine though, i think because he believed god made sure causality was real.

#: some site here is saying "induction is driven by observation, but never approaches an actual proof of a theory"

$: i think i agree with that site

#: well see i think "observation" is a tricky concept here. personally i think it seems vague. what is observation?

$:observer = question poser, experiment framer.
the one who decides the conditions under which nature will be measured.

#: so how are we doing that deciding on conditions, because there must be a process of selecting what/when/how to observe
and that is fueled by some sort of "why" question.

$: same way we ask people questions about their intentions. the why question is what keeps science from ever being objective. it can only tell us what we want to know, not what we dont know,
or dont want to know, or dont ask, because we didnt know to ask.

#: see then there is this problem of we can argue that these methods like induction/deduction/scientific method they seem to have "use"? where "use" means something like we can predict patterns in closed systems.

$: they do predict what happens in closed systems tho dont they?

#: it seems like it, yeah

$: its just that a closed system isn't what 'nature' is. a closed system is what nature becomes when we ask it a particular question.

#: so science is useful because it answers our questions?

$: exactly. i am trying to change the language and the connotation of induction so that we re-conceptualize science as a conversation with nature, rather than a dissection of it. 

#: a conversation, yes, that resonates

More from this channel