PHI WEEK 6

how do we solve the problem of induction?

-we can reduce it to deduction.. would look like a consequence of definitions -we can appeal to some kind of nondeductive reasoning, but cant be appeal of past experiences to future things.

Deduction

If we have a premise, if p then q and a premise p then we know Q bc the truth of p>q and p

Why might we not be satisfied with the ordinary language dissolution?

- basically says He (Salmon) can ask the question perfectly fine, he has no trouble asking it. It is fully intelligible. Theres two types of justification. There is validation: justifying something based on a more fundamental principle. Maybe we can't ask for a validation of induction. But theres another sort of justification: vindication, justification of something for a particular goal or purpose. Why does it work? Why should we use it? -he can still say the problem of induction makes sense bc he can ask for a vindication of induction.

What wont work?

-Induction worked in the past, so its likely to work in the future -Induction is knowable a priori in particular is is synthetic a priori

Basic idea behind Kant's proposed sltn to problem of induction?

-Kant said theres certain things we can know abt the world, based on how are minds are. -causality is something we project based on the kind of brains we have. -Kant believes that induction is justified bc of how our minds work. Geometry is somehting we know to be tru about the world bc thats how are minds work: euclidean space. It's synthetic a priori just like Euclidean geometry. -- we know that 2+2 is 4 conceptually, dont need to conduct a test. -Kants idea is that Eucli geometry and induction are justified prior to experience. -Euclidean spaces and non euc spaces. Euc geometry is an axiomatic system based on a few assumptions and using mathematical reasonings to justify. This is based on a small number of assumptions. Parallels postulate: two parallel lines will never cross. Space in Euc geometry is flat and physics say space is curved, not flat, s it is not euclidean. So this means that the parallel's postulate is false. A line is not the shortest distance bw two points. once you start looking at space thats larger, space is not uncurved, its curved.

What does Kant think?

-The mind can only experience the wolrd in certain ways -theres a sstructure that gives objective principles/laws of structure of expereicne, and this is how we get laws

what is the basic idea behind the ordinary language of Wittgensteinian dissolution of the problem?

-he thought that misuses of language were the problems to phi. -The problem is just to say something like : induction is fundamental to what we think as rational. We cant rlly ask for a more fundamental principle to justify induction, since induction is part of what it is that makes ur rational creatures (induction is constitutive of (part of) rationality). We basically cant even ask the question "what justifies induction?".

DISCUSSION SESSION

1. what is the problem of induction? Induction is a type of argument that reasons from premises about a sample group, to a conclusion about a target population. example: 1. 90% of UC davibez students do not hold a job. 2. John is a UCD student 3. Conclusion: John probably doesn't hold a job. okay, so whats the problem?: induction about the future depends on the idea that the future will resemble the past. So, the issue is, how do we justify the future principle? Either the future principle is a "relation of ideas" (a priori) or it's a "matter of fact". If it's a relation of ideas, then it has to be a contradiction to deny the future principle. But, if it's a relation of ideas, then it has to be a contradiction to deny the future principle and we have to justify is as a matter of fact. The only way to do this is to say that the past was always something like the past, but to say that this tells us something about the future, is circular. -Either justified bc thats what we find from experience or that it is just a matter of fact. -Cant be matter of fact bc this causes us to assume that bc induction worked in the past, it will work in the future... No good justification for induction

on the 19th of may

2-3 pgs of a draft required -send him your paper a week before so he can give you feedback -go to OH for TA and he will look at drafts -have "In this paper I argue that poppers criterion of falsifiablism appropriate sorts falsibiablity... and kitchers objection to the popperian, fails" . Give a little bit of background knowledge but only a little.. -title sections -maybe have about a few mla citations -kitcher paper look at the references -can have like 4 sources or 3 even.. look for outisde sources too tho

why might we not be satisfied w poppers strategy?

If popper were right, then science couldn't rlly tell us any more about the world than what we've already observed. Deduction is non-ampliative: when the conclusion is not contained in the premises. This means, the truth of the conclusion is contained win the truth of the premises. Ex: If it's raining outside, then its wet out. Its not wet outside. Therefore, it is not raining outside. If it is raining out, it has to be wet out or then the principle has to be false. This conclusion is guaranteed by the premises. Science is not restricted to what we've already observed. Some theories are better than others, so it seems were going to need some sort of justification for induction.

Background to do what convincing argumentation looks like

circular reasoning: identify by "begging the question" -we assume the thing to be supported in the premises that are supposed to be doing the supporting. -EX: argument w someone if god exists: god exists therefore god exists -this is unhelpful to be given this argument that appeals to the conclusion. We need reasons to believe the conclusion What is induction? -we can look at the frequency of some property and use that info abt the sample to guide us to a supporting conclusion -tell us about what to expect in the future EX: day 1: the sun rose day 2: sun rose all the way down to day whatever.. billions of days: the sun rose Conclusion: the sun will rise tmr -we are making an inference on a generalized case (an inference from a sample to the whole population) we have reasons that defeat the conclusion tht the sun will always rise inductive arguments are not guarantees

underdetermination of theory by data:

duheum quine thesis: kithcer points out that a theory shuld be falsified only by adding auxhulliary hypotheses -the duhem quine thesis says that hypotheses are not testable in isoliation, you need a bundle of hypotheses. -any set of experiences is gonna underdetermine which set is true -never gonna be that only one theory is consistent with its evidence -crucial experiments never really happened -There will always be theories that are inconsitent w each other too -We can think of duhem quiene as a set of sentences and hypotheses to entail the observation sentences -underdetermination.

reasoning

either deductive: if p then q p therefore, q or non deductive: the truth of the premises does not guarantee it in light of the evidence -the past can be a reliable guide to the future is inductive -deductive are apriori -appeal to experience to justify the claim. ---induction works bc the experience of induction working: past experiences help figure out future events: touching hot stove burns bc you feel hurt. This is evidence what is the problem w induction then?? -induction will give you a circular argument. p therefore p is an argument that doesnt work

kitcher (the one you're doing)

issue of demarcation of science

ONE IDEA of defending induction

look to experience, induction has a great track record --like calling ppl during the great depression to ask them who they were gonna vote for but this is biased bc only rich ppl have phones so yeah

another response that induction works

ordinary language response -way to approach philosophical problems: reasons why induction works,,, out notion of being reasonable. THe idea of using experiecne to guide behavior/ future experiecnes -consider deduction: not appropriate bc you cant justify deduction w out using deduction The law of large numbers: stated that if we have some set of objects, and we extract a sample from this population, we can come as close as we like w as high as probability to stating the freq of trait in entire population provided we can always sample enough objects... Largeness of the sample. Being nonbiased means every member had an equal chance of showing up in that sample.

inductive principle

past experience is a reliable guide to future experience under certain circumstances

how does popper deal w the problem of induction?

popper takes it rlly seriously. He says: induction is not justified. Hume taught us that induction is not a good way to reason. Popper says that science doesnt use induction. he says science only uses induction. So, in science we only come up w hypotheses that make predictons. When these predictions are falsified, we know the theory is false, in science we arent confirming theories, we try to disconfirm. Theory leads to prediction, we observe that prediction is false, so the theory is also false (Modus tollens).

synthetic and apriori

synthetic: a claim that isnt analytic -a claim is analytic is its true by virtue of meaning: ex: all bachelors are unmarried -synthetic claims: all dogs are brown apriori: knowable prior to experience -w out appeal to info about how our world is in contrast to how our world is w mathematical /logical necessities apostariori

second idea

the principle of induction is knowable a priori --synthetic a priori A priori: what you know before you have evidence -if youre synthetic a priori, you're true bc you cant know false things for any proposition as a priori it is true --they arent telling us to not believe in induction, they are just trying to come up with a justification tho since we all believe in induction

the problem of induction is

the problem in epistemology: theory of knowledge -figuring out what justification is and under what condition do we know that something is the case -what makes scientific reasoning special

What might we doubt that Kant's sltn is to the problem?

the way that we imagine the world, means that euclidean geometry is true, this is what Kant is arguing. -But euclidean geometry is not the geometry of physical space. So to say that induction is based on how the mind works is not to say that it's true or reveal the truth about how the world is. -Even if Kant says that based on how our minds work, doesnt mean that it is justified.

counter induction

the way things were in the past isnt evidence that this isnt gonna be the case in the future. Things can change . -Trying to convince them that counter induction doesn't work: look at all those times you ignored what expereicne is telling you bc you thought something was gonna happen but there was a change. They are question begging.