•

Created by joaolkf at 3y

**Induction** usually refers to a form of reasoning that has specific examples as premises and general propositions as conclusions. For example, arguments such as "Swans 1,2,3, …,*n* are white, hence all swans are white", takes the specific observations of a finite number (*n*) of swans been white to a general conclusion that all swan are whites. This was taken by many philosophers of science as the basis of the scientific method. However, due to many problems with the old definition, modern views of induction state that any form of reasoning where the conclusion isn't necessarily entailed in the premises is a form of inductive reasoning. Therefore, even inferences which depart from general premises to specific conclusions can be inductive, for example "The sun has always risen, so it will also rise tomorrow". On the other hand, we have deductive reasoning: when the conclusions are entailed by the premises. Contrary to deduction, induction can be wrong since the conclusions are always contingent on the way the world is and not ~~necessary.~~independent of the facts.

Since inductive reasoning was establish in its more restricted form to modern days – where more wide definitions were given – there has been a problem with the justification of the validity of induction. Hume argued that the justification for induction could either be a deduction or an induction. Since deductive reasoning only results in necessary conclusions and inductions can fail, the justification for inductive reasoning could not be deductive. But any inductive justification would be circular1.Solomonoff induction could be a solution to this problem, since it gives a reasonable non-inductive departing point from inductive reasoning by suggesting we should assign prior probability to hypothesis dependent on their level of complexity.

**Induction** usually refers to a form of reasoning that has specific examples as premises and general propositions as conclusions. For example, arguments such as "Swans 1,2,3, …,*n* are white, hence all swans are white", takes the specific observations of a finite number (*n*) of swans been white to a general conclusion that all swan are whites. This was taken by many philosophers of science as the basis of the scientific method. However, due to many problems with the old definition, modern views of induction state that any form of reasoning where the conclusion isn't necessarily entailed in the premises is a form of inductive reasoning. Therefore, even inferences which depart from general premises to specific ~~conclusion~~conclusions can be inductive, for example "The sun has always risen, so it will also rise tomorrow". On the other hand, we have deductive reasoning: when the conclusions are entailed by the premises. Contrary to deduction, induction can be wrong since the conclusions are always contingent and not necessary.

**Induction** usually refers to a form of reasoning that has specific examples as premises and general propositions as conclusions. For example, arguments such as "Swans 1,2,3, …,*n* are white, hence all swans are white", takes the specific observations of a finite number (*n*) of swans been white to a general conclusion that all swan are whites. This was taken by many ~~philosopher~~philosophers of science as the basis of the scientific method. However, due to many problems with the old definition, modern ~~definitions~~views of induction state that any form of reasoning where the conclusion isn't necessarily entailed in the premises is a form of inductive reasoning. Therefore, even inferences which depart from general premises to specific conclusion can be inductive, for example "The sun has always risen, so it will also rise tomorrow". On the other hand, we have deductive reasoning: when the conclusions are entailed by the premises. Contrary to deduction, induction can be wrong since the conclusions are always contingent and not necessary.

**Induction** usually refers to a form of reasoning that has specific examples as premises and general propositions as conclusions. For example, arguments such as ~~!Swans~~"Swans 1,2,3, …,*n* are white, hence all swans are white", takes the specific observations of a finite number (*n*) of swans been white to a general conclusion that all swan are whites. This was taken by many philosopher of science as the basis of scientific method. However, modern definitions of induction state that any form of reasoning where the conclusion isn't necessarily entailed in the premises is a form of inductive reasoning. Therefore, even inferences which depart from general premises to specific conclusion can be inductive, for example "The sun has always risen, so it will also rise tomorrow". On the other hand, we have deductive reasoning: when the conclusions are entailed by the premises. Contrary to deduction, induction can be wrong since the conclusions are always contingent and not necessary.

joaolkf v1.0.0Oct 15th 2012 (+2767) Created page with "'''Induction''' usually refers to a form of reasoning that has specific examples as premises and general propositions as conclusions. For example, arguments such as !Swans 1,2,3,..." 1

**Induction** usually refers to a form of reasoning that has specific examples as premises and general propositions as conclusions. For example, arguments such as !Swans 1,2,3, …,*n* are white, hence all swans are white", takes the specific observations of a finite number (*n*) of swans been white to a general conclusion that all swan are whites. This was taken by many philosopher of science as the basis of scientific method. However, modern definitions of induction state that any form of reasoning where the conclusion isn't necessarily entailed in the premises is a form of inductive reasoning. Therefore, even inferences which depart from general premises to specific conclusion can be inductive, for example "The sun has always risen, so it will also rise tomorrow". On the other hand, we have deductive reasoning: when the conclusions are entailed by the premises. Contrary to deduction, induction can be wrong since the conclusions are always contingent and not necessary.

Since inductive reasoning was establish in its more restricted form to modern days – where more wide definitions were given – there has been a problem with the justification of the validity of induction. Hume argued that the justification for induction could either be a deduction or an induction. Since deductive reasoning only results in necessary conclusions and inductions can fail, the justification for inductive reasoning could not be deductive. But any inductive justification would be circular1.

It’s possible to make probabilistic inductive reasoning, such as "95% of humans who ever lived have died; hence I’m going to die". An account for this kind of reasoning is using Bayesian probability, in that case the conclusion is also a probability and induction is taken to be a way of updating your beliefs given evidence (95% of humans been mortals is a evidence of a high probability of you also been mortal). This account is also a more modern view of how the scientific method works.

Mathematical induction is method of mathematical proof where one proves a statement holds for all possible n by showing it holds for the lowest *n* and then that this statement if preserved by any operation which increases the value of *n*. For sets with finite members - or infinities members than can be indexed in the natural numbers -, it suffice to show the statement is preserved by the successor operation (If it is true for *n*, then it is true for'' n+1''). Because the conclusion is necessary given the premises, mathematical induction is taken to be a form of deductive reasoning and it isn't affected by the problem of induction.

Inductionusually refers to a form of reasoning that has specific examples as premises and general propositions as conclusions. For example, arguments such as "Swans 1,2,3, …,nare white, hence all swans are white",~~takes~~take the specific observations of a finite number (n) of swans been white to a general conclusion that all swan are whites.~~This was taken by many philosophers of science as the basis of the scientific method. However, due to many problems with the old definition, modern~~Modern views of induction state that any form of reasoning where the conclusion isn't necessarily entailed in the premises is a form of inductive reasoning. Therefore, even inferences which

~~depart~~proceed from general premises to specific conclusions can be inductive, for example "The sun has always risen, so it will also rise tomorrow".~~On the other hand, we have~~In contrast, in deductive~~reasoning: when~~reasoning the conclusions are logically entailed by the premises. Contrary to deduction, induction can be wrong since the conclusions~~are always contingent~~depend on the way the world~~is and~~actually is, not~~independent~~merely on the logical structure of the~~facts.~~argument.~~Since inductive reasoning was establish in its more restricted form to modern days – where more wide definitions were given – there~~There has historically been a problem with the justification of the validity of induction. Hume argued that the justification for induction could either be a deduction or an induction. Since deductive reasoning only results in necessary conclusions and inductions can fail, the justification for inductive reasoning could not be deductive. But any inductive justification would be circular1.~~Solomonoff induction~~~~could be a solution to this problem, since it gives a reasonable non-inductive departing point from inductive reasoning by suggesting we should assign prior probability to hypothesis dependent on their level of complexity.~~It’s possible to

~~make~~engage in probabilistic inductive reasoning, such as "95% of humans who ever lived have died; hence I’m going to die".~~An account for this~~This kind of reasoning~~is using~~employs Bayesian probability, in~~that~~which case the conclusion is also a probability and induction is taken to be a way of updating your beliefs given evidence~~(95% of~~(finding out that most humans~~been mortals~~who have ever lived have died increases your probability that you will die).Solomonoff induction is a

~~evidence~~formalization of~~a high probability~~the problem of~~you also~~induction which has been~~mortal). This account is also a more modern view~~claimed to solve the problem of~~how~~induction. It starts with all possible hypotheses (sequences) as represented by computer programs (that generate those sequences), weighted by their simplicity. It then proceeds to discard any hypotheses which are inconsistent with the~~scientific method works.~~data, and to update the probabilities of the remaining hypotheses.Mathematical induction is method of mathematical proof where one proves a statement holds for all possible n by showing it holds for the lowest

nand then that this statement if preserved by any operation which increases the value ofn. For sets with finite members - or infinities members than can be indexed in the natural numbers -, it~~suffice~~suffices to show the statement is preserved by the successor operation (If it is true forn, then it is true for'' n+1''). Because the conclusion is necessary given the premises, mathematical induction is taken to be a form of deductive reasoning and it isn't affected by the problem of induction.