ewv

The Logical Leap and criticism

529 posts in this topic

Here is my one shot example of a generalization/induction.

Sticking your wet tongue to a frozen flag pole causes pain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is my one shot example of a generalization/induction.

Sticking your wet tongue to a frozen flag pole causes pain.

In what way is that a generalization? What have you generalized? What have you induced?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is my one shot example of a generalization/induction.

Sticking your wet tongue to a frozen flag pole causes pain.

In what way is that a generalization? What have you generalized? What have you induced?

Put your tongue on the frozen pole and the answers to your questions will become crystal clear. Think of it as a perceptual level experiment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is my one shot example of a generalization/induction.

Sticking your wet tongue to a frozen flag pole causes pain.

In what way is that a generalization? What have you generalized? What have you induced?

Put your tongue on the frozen pole and the answers to your questions will become crystal clear. Think of it as a perceptual level experiment.

If you don't want to think of it as a perceptual level experiment you can also think of it as a proposition or a triple dog dare.

The one thing I am certain of is that sticking your wet tongue tongue to a frozen flag pole causes pain.

This is my one shot example that Tom denies exists. I disagree, anyone want to try my perceptual level experiment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doesn't seeing concept formation as a non-inductive process - as LP described in the exchange quoted by Mercury - imply that concept formation is based solely on some subjective process of the concept-former, independent of actual metaphysical attributes and the fact that some attributes are in fact more important than others in forming these generalizations?

But aren't concepts the product of differentiation, not generalizations? You observe entities and group them together by the differences in their characteristics. That's not induction. A child forms the concept of dog by, for example, observing that a dog barks while a cat meows. It's classification, not logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doesn't seeing concept formation as a non-inductive process - as LP described in the exchange quoted by Mercury - imply that concept formation is based solely on some subjective process of the concept-former, independent of actual metaphysical attributes and the fact that some attributes are in fact more important than others in forming these generalizations?

But aren't concepts the product of differentiation, not generalizations? You observe entities and group them together by the differences in their characteristics. That's not induction. A child forms the concept of dog by, for example, observing that a dog barks while a cat meows. It's classification, not logic.

You group them by similarities in characteristics but you distinguish them from other groups by their differences with the characteristics of the entities in those other groups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is my one shot example of a generalization/induction.

Sticking your wet tongue to a frozen flag pole causes pain.

In what way is that a generalization? What have you generalized? What have you induced?

Put your tongue on the frozen pole and the answers to your questions will become crystal clear. Think of it as a perceptual level experiment.

That doesn't answer my questions. Experimental data does not give a generalization. Some mental processing must go on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is my one shot example of a generalization/induction.

Sticking your wet tongue to a frozen flag pole causes pain.

In what way is that a generalization? What have you generalized? What have you induced?

Put your tongue on the frozen pole and the answers to your questions will become crystal clear. Think of it as a perceptual level experiment.

If you don't want to think of it as a perceptual level experiment you can also think of it as a proposition or a triple dog dare.

The one thing I am certain of is that sticking your wet tongue tongue to a frozen flag pole causes pain.

This is my one shot example that Tom denies exists. I disagree, anyone want to try my perceptual level experiment?

Being certain or confident that something will happen does not demonstrate a generalization. If I take a sufficient amount of morphine, I will not feel pain during your experiment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doesn't seeing concept formation as a non-inductive process - as LP described in the exchange quoted by Mercury - imply that concept formation is based solely on some subjective process of the concept-former, independent of actual metaphysical attributes and the fact that some attributes are in fact more important than others in forming these generalizations?

But aren't concepts the product of differentiation, not generalizations? You observe entities and group them together by the differences in their characteristics. That's not induction. A child forms the concept of dog by, for example, observing that a dog barks while a cat meows. It's classification, not logic.

Concepts are not "a product" of differentiation. Units are grouped by similarity, not differences. Similarity is in comparison with a commensurable characteristic that is different, as in two shades of red similar against blue. The similar units grouped together are integrated into a single mental unit to form the concept, as opposed to leaving only a group. The generalization is in including an open-ended number of other units that share the essential characteristic; you are widening the group to include all instances that share the essential characteristics of the particulars you start by focusing on. In Ayn Rand's words: "The process of observing the facts of reality and of integrating them into concepts is, in essence, a process of induction." The widening of units in a classification to include all of them is not the same as inductively inferring properties for all members of an existing class from the particulars you observe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is my one shot example of a generalization/induction.

Sticking your wet tongue to a frozen flag pole causes pain.

In what way is that a generalization? What have you generalized? What have you induced?

Put your tongue on the frozen pole and the answers to your questions will become crystal clear. Think of it as a perceptual level experiment.

If you don't want to think of it as a perceptual level experiment you can also think of it as a proposition or a triple dog dare.

The one thing I am certain of is that sticking your wet tongue tongue to a frozen flag pole causes pain.

This is my one shot example that Tom denies exists. I disagree, anyone want to try my perceptual level experiment?

Being certain or confident that something will happen does not demonstrate a generalization. If I take a sufficient amount of morphine, I will not feel pain during your experiment.

He described a single instance with no grounds for the generalization. if you understand enough about tongues and frozen metal to conclude that licking a frozen metal pipe causes pain, that is a deduction not an induction. "Inducing" the conclusion from a single instance or simple enumeration is not valid inductive reasoning. A strong feeling of fear does not change that, which is not to say that you should keep trying it without understanding what you are doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In post #485 ewv wrote:

"Inducing" the conclusion from a single instance or simple enumeration is not valid inductive reasoning.

On page 24 of TLL David Harriman writes:

(Q)uantity of instances alone is irrelevant to induction. In first-level induction a single instance is sufficient.

I would be interested in ewv's comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In post #485 ewv wrote:

"Inducing" the conclusion from a single instance or simple enumeration is not valid inductive reasoning.

On page 24 of TLL David Harriman writes:

(Q)uantity of instances alone is irrelevant to induction. In first-level induction a single instance is sufficient.

I would be interested in ewv's comments.

It should also be pointed out that PaulsHere has conceded to the fact that sticking your wet tongue to the flag pole causes pain; otherwise, there is no need to take a sufficient amount of morphine before doing the experiment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In post #485 ewv wrote:

"Inducing" the conclusion from a single instance or simple enumeration is not valid inductive reasoning.

On page 24 of TLL David Harriman writes:

(Q)uantity of instances alone is irrelevant to induction. In first-level induction a single instance is sufficient.

I would be interested in ewv's comments.

It should also be pointed out that PaulsHere has conceded to the fact that sticking your wet tongue to the flag pole causes pain; otherwise, there is no need to take a sufficient amount of morphine before doing the experiment.

So, what does that have to do with anything? Sticking a knife in your heart will kill you. "Go try that experiment" as you encouraged me to try yours. What is your point? That is not a generalization, nor is it arrived at by induction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wet tongues stick to cold flag poles is a generalization.

So is boiling water burns hands.

So is pushing a ball makes it roll.

So is fire burns.

So is taking morphine relieves pain.

The induction is the fact that wet tongues stuck to cold flag poles cause pain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wet tongues stick to cold flag poles is a generalization.

So is boiling water burns hands.

So is pushing a ball makes it roll.

So is fire burns.

So is taking morphine relieves pain.

The induction is the fact that wet tongues stuck to cold flag poles cause pain.

One could know beforehand that sticking a wet tongue on a cold metal pole will hurt as a simple deduction. You are deducing a new instance (wet tongue + metal pole = crikey that hurts!) from old generalizations (the human tongue is wet and sensitive to pain and extreme temperatures, the metal pole will have the same temperature as the cold ambient air and as a metal it conducts heat well). There is no need to "generalize" a conclusion that was already determined from deduction. They don't need a further generalization to know that a moist tongue freezes when exposed to sub-freezing temperatures... Do you need to re-do generalizations to anticipate what will happen when you step on a thumb-tack, or walk on hot coals?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wet tongues stick to cold flag poles is a generalization.

So is boiling water burns hands.

So is pushing a ball makes it roll.

So is fire burns.

So is taking morphine relieves pain.

The induction is the fact that wet tongues stuck to cold flag poles cause pain.

Boiling water by itself does not burn hands; boiling water, when poured on uncovered hands, burns them.

If I push a ball that's sitting against a wall I may cause an indentation, but it does not roll.

Saying that "fire burns" is no more than saying that "wind blows".

Taking not enough morphine may do nothing.

The wet tongue of a dead man may stick to a frozen pole, but will cause no pain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Walls stop balls from rolling is a generalization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dead men feel no pain is a generalization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Walls stop balls from rolling is a generalization.

A generalization, but not a true one. Balls which ARE rolling may strike the wall, bounce and stop, or angle off in another ditrection. Balls which are placed against the wall aren't rolling; howevfer, if the floor is slanted, the ball may take odff rolling along the wall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Walls stop balls from rolling is a generalization.

A generalization, but not a true one. Balls which ARE rolling may strike the wall, bounce and stop, or angle off in another ditrection. Balls which are placed against the wall aren't rolling; howevfer, if the floor is slanted, the ball may take odff rolling along the wall.

So pushing a ball against the wall can cause it to roll?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dead men feel no pain is a generalization.

Again, this is a deduction of a new instance from two concepts ("Dead men" and "pain"). If you know what the two are, it's a simple matter to deduce the rest. Calling this "a generalization" is very sloppy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dead men feel no pain is a generalization.

"Dead men feel no pain" is something a smart aleck gangster might say. He knows it's true, because he knows that dead men are dead men, who feel nothing, and not living men can feel things or not, depending on differing conditions. So, it is not a generalization, but a tautology: Dead men feel no pain=dead men don't feel==dead men are dead men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dead men feel no pain is a generalization.

"Dead men feel no pain" is something a smart aleck gangster might say. He knows it's true, because he knows that dead men are dead men, who feel nothing, and not living men can feel things or not, depending on differing conditions. So, it is not a generalization, but a tautology: Dead men feel no pain=dead men don't feel==dead men are dead men.

Are you now disagreeing with your own example?

"The wet tongue of a dead man may stick to a frozen pole, but will cause no pain."

"Dead men feel no pain," is a generalization I inferred from the example you gave me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Walls stop balls from rolling is a generalization.

A generalization, but not a true one. Balls which ARE rolling may strike the wall, bounce and stop, or angle off in another ditrection. Balls which are placed against the wall aren't rolling; howevfer, if the floor is slanted, the ball may take odff rolling along the wall.

So pushing a ball against the wall can cause it to roll?

That will obviously depend on the direction and force of the push. Push the ball straight against the wall--no roll; push the ball straight down into the floor--no roll; push a bowling ball (sitting on a plush carpet) very lightly--maybe a wobble, but no roll.

It does remain true that in most cases a pushed ball will roll, but that is a generalization of a sloppy kind, kind of like "common sense" which the average man uses often to his peril. He never knows with certainty that "this" is the time when his "generalization will hold true. Which is why he needs a valid method of induction just as much as a scientist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In post #485 ewv wrote:

"Inducing" the conclusion from a single instance or simple enumeration is not valid inductive reasoning.

On page 24 of TLL David Harriman writes:

(Q)uantity of instances alone is irrelevant to induction. In first-level induction a single instance is sufficient.

I would be interested in ewv's comments.

Quantity alone is irrelevant in that it does not establish a conclusion. With at least some minimal additional thought it can lead to an hypothesis. "Quantity has a quality all its own", but is not a proof.

I reject his characterization of what a first level propositional generalization is and the idea that a single instance is sufficient by itself. There is no such thing as an automatic generalization with no additional thought making connections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites