SatanLucy

which isnt the same thing as completely invalid

Nothing is completely invalid. If you threw dice roll to guess answers, sure, you would get something right.

95% of accidents occur in or within 5 miles of home

5 miles away from home is a pretty dangerous distance. Why would someone travel so far from home?

Inductive arguments arent valid deductively

Hence science based on them isn't valid deductively.

Yes, climate change can happen without humans. My issue is more with the fact that we seem to be entering into opposite of ice age. I don't like ice age, but I cant say I am a big fan of 40 degrees celsius either. I mean, burning in hell is one thing, but why do I have to burn in hell on Earth as well? Seems unfair.

Actually, the safest option is to not go outside.

I assume with all those shootings happening, a lot of Americans are considering bedrotting lifestyle as best alternative.

I don't really see point of going outside, from the perspective of safety. Reality is, you have reasonably high chance to be involved in car accident by just being outside a lot.

As for women in USA, given that USA has over 1 million sexual abuse cases per year, if I were a woman in USA, I would not go outside.

Also, I have to make clear difference between deductions based on observations and induction based on observations.

Deduction based on observation is:

"this applies in all areas we observed, so it applies to this observed area as well"

this logic is always true, because specific observed area is part of "all observed areas". Conclusion must follow from premise.

Induction goes beyond observed area and says:

"this applies in all areas we observed, so it applies to all non-observed areas as well"

this is a leap of faith. conclusion doesnt follow from premise.

The goal being to improve accuracy, right? You must recognize deduction can yield absolute certainty in a faulty conclusion. All it takes is a bad premise.

If we are talking of actual deduction, then the foundational premise must be generally true claim.

It's true people can use deduction to arrive at incorrect conclusion, but that's only if their premises are incorrect and also not themselves deductions. It's actually possible to use deductive reasoning in flawed form, most famous one being "if, then" form, which is actually more often misused than used accurately.

The basic idea around deduction is to take part from the whole.

The classic example is:

"All A are B, so some A are B".

This is logic moving from general to specific.

And as far as I know, this logic cannot produce false conclusion unless "All A are B" is false.

How one comes to premise "All A are B" is a different thing. It can happen by definition, logical law, exhausting options, or observation(induction).

But when it happens by induction, you are again looking at weaker argument unless it's a strong constantly repeated observation.

Yes, the goal is to improve accuracy, and we can say for sure proper deduction is true as long as premises are true. Induction on the other hand can be false even if premises are true. Induction presented in form of deductive logic suffers from unproved premise from start.

Induction to spot the patterns and make the premise, and deduction to predict what happens if its true

You are correct that induction is often needed to make a premise. Not always. Sometimes starting premise can merely be logical law or exhausting options and exhausting explanations to see which explanation remains both internally consistent and not contradicting some true theory elsewhere, and which explanation is absurd.

My issue isn't with strong induction. My issue is more with relying too heavily on induction to the point where it's used even in cases where it has decently high chance to be wrong.

I don't deny that laws of physics which were generalized by induction are true. Maybe they are not true everywhere in universe, because they were derived by induction, but the chance of them being true is more likely than not in some area.

My issue is more with using induction beyond it's probable limits. We also know there are cases where induction is terribly uncertain. We know that AI uses induction to produce hallucinations.

I can agree that induction can be useful. My point of disagreement would be that induction should really be a last resort, especially in cases of extrapolation, which is least reliable formal form of reasoning there is.

Science which prefers induction over all other forms of reasoning is basically guaranteed to make bunch of false conclusions. And we have seen that with pretty much any science which relied on induction, be it psychology, sociology, pharma drug testing, social studies...ect.

We see flaw of these sciences because they are using form of reasoning which is considered nonsense in formal logic.

This is not to be confused with strong induction. Strong induction is basically something which repeats as exactly true each time when observed, even with expansion of observation.

Soft induction is area where results vary, so claim is sometimes true, sometimes not true. A lot of social science suffers from this issue.

Strong induction does have its own problems, such as assumption that what we observed so far follows same laws as remaining 99% of things we didn't observe.

However, at least in case of strong induction, we assume it's 100% true in areas we observed so far, so we can apply it there, and I don't think it's likely that laws of physics will stop working tomorrow.

However, even strong induction, when applied to non-observed areas, becomes flawed. I mean, black holes are still partly a mystery despite all strong induction we had so far.

Don’t use you4 past to predict your future.

Causation science is pretty much based on past predicting future. the only issue is when a lot of causes mix, so prediction is messy.

Even AI agrees with me:

"Yes, extrapolation is generally considered the least reliable method for making predictions because it estimates values outside the range of your actual measured data"

AI should know, given that it's main issue AI faces today. They try to solve this issue by increasing training data, and increasing parameters count to make AI smarter so it doesn't hallucinate as much due to this issue.

As Savant mentioned, extrapolation based on known distribution is unreliable even for AI or computers. Interpolation is more reliable. However, inductive reasoning based on small percentage of observed world is basically extrapolation. Interpolation allows deductive reasoning, because it's usually just filling gaps in training data. But the greater the unobserved world compared to observed, greater the gap.

Extrapolation induction is about as unreliable as it gets in science. The only next step would be making predictions based on dice roll.

What are you advocating? ...changing science so it doesnt allow more information to hone accuracy, or, what, getting rid of science?

What I advocate for is greater focus on deductions, observations and probabilities made by those.

I really dont think science which are based entirely on inductions have any great future, because their whole rule for logic they use is fundamentally flawed and proved false by countless examples in countless scenarios. there is a reason why sociology and psychology are called "soft science", because they rely on induction and its pretty much universal knowledge in scientific world that induction is not just uncertain, but sometimes even blatantly misleading.

there are only few areas where inductive logic is good, and those are always consistent repetition of conclusion. Because inductive reasoning doesnt use deduction, its conclusion entirely depends on observations to be proved likely true over and over in each observation.

However, in any case where observations are inconsistent or largely incomplete, conclusion made by induction resembles more of an assumption than reasoning.

I say, sure, if you have nothing else, use induction. But really, order of work should be deduction > observation > explanation exhaustion testing > induction. I guess definition deduction also have their place, and some science is based entirely on definition deduction, like math. However, definition deduction rarely applies to other forms of science, because it does require definitions based on primitives as opposed to arbitrary definitions. Math definitions are based on primitives. Even if you changed definition of "2", the primitive rule of addition would actually still be true. So definition deduction mainly deals with definitions made from primitive concepts. It descends into inconsistency if definitions arent based on some fundamental rule of logic. Which also does bring us to starting premises being laws of logic, and other than "A = A", the basic rule of logic is deduction (All A are B means "single A" is B).

As I said before, induction goes contrary to deduction, and its basic rule is that "Some A are B means All A are B". this rule is proved easily false, even in case of probabilities where "In some cases, probability is 50% = In all cases, probability is 50%" is also proved false.

In other words, induction uses a form of logic which can be true, but at same time, it can be false, so it takes a lot of observations to establish probability, and right now humans arent really in position to observe everything there is, to increase chances of induction logic being correct.

These aren’t problems for science

Lack of certainty or known probability is a problem.

Absolute certainty is itself impossible to logically maintain unless you begin with the presumption that you are infallible

I mean, deductive logic is literally certainty of conclusions from premises. Math which works on deductive logic is literally certainly true. I don't really see why you even bother to respond if this will be your response.

Yes, I agree, but I dont understand your objection to induction I guess. I mean, let's say only one card has been drawn from the deck and it was black. Your syllogism is 100% true, but the level of certainty regarding pulling another black card is functionally ~50%. Is it the pretense of certainty that you like?

I prefer certainty, and I do think deductive reasoning reaches it better. I have no problem relying on induction when certainty or probability cannot be established by deductive logic. My issue with inductive logic is that establishing probability based on it is extremely difficult in some cases. Because its different from probability established by deductive logic. there are some probabilities in inductive logic which are almost certain, such as "sun will rise tomorrow". Its the constant repetition of something which establishes higher probability of further repetition. However, when we are dealing with probabilities which are not high, inductive reasoning gives a lot of false conclusions. If probability is 60%, then we are faced with problem that 40% of our conclusions are wrong, and from those conclusions, more incorrect conclusions are derived. However, we dont even know what probability exactly is when we are dealing with situation where observed world is smaller than non-observed world. It is true that in theory, induction produces 100% certainty when everything is observed, and higher certainty when most things are observed. However, in any situation where non-observed world is like 2x of observed world, issue rises with inductive logic. I think science doesnt even observe 50% of Earth, let alone universe. Its reason why science such as sociology and psychology is terribly unreliable, and whats worse is that other science which are considered hard science also face issue that we just dont know if our current knowledge even applies outside the tiny portion of the universe we observe.

Deduction doesn't operate on probabilities and chance

Deduction operates on deriving conclusion. What that conclusion is, is another thing.

You can quite perfectly make deductive argument that something has higher chance of happening.

P1. If there are more black cards in deck than white cards, then it is more likely to draw black card.

P2. There are more black cards in deck than white cards

C. It is more likely to draw black card

This is deductive reasoning. As long as premises are true, conclusion certainly follows.

Probability doesn't reduce uncertainty, it measures it.

I mean, if you have probability, you are less uncertain. I am more certain about outcome which has 90% chance of happening than outcome which I have no idea what's the chance of happening.

We don't always have clean numbers to make precise calculations, and we are forced to use intuition to guess at the uncertainty

I never quite understood the intuition, mainly because so many people get the wrong intuition about something. From my point of view, if you don't have probability nor deduction, I don't know what do you draw conclusion from. Maybe some people have a stronger sense of a priori premise, so they don't need probability nor deduction to get that premise. But such people are usually rare. I get that when you don't have probability nor deduction, the only thing you can rely on to begin with is the intuition. My issue tho is, that intuition is a mystery to me. I don't really get how someone can know something based on intuition, because it's not really a form of logic. It's more like sixth sense.

Induction works in scenarios where uncertainty is built in

It works sometimes, sure. My complaining is more about time when it doesnt work, which happens a lot. My issue is that probability as a way to reduce uncertainty only works if we assume unobserved will follow same probability as observed. It's a huge leap of faith in all cases where amount of observed data is insufficient or just tiny.

I mean, how exactly do you use deductive reasoning to determine what the next card will be in a shuffled deck?

Usually by knowing which cards aren't in the deck and which groups of cards are more present, so the ones which are have higher probability of being drawn.

Its sort of like if 50% of cards were white and 50% black. If you drew 6 cards and all were white, the remaining cards contain more black cards than white cards, so higher chance of drawing black card.

Those who play poker usually divide cards into good cards and bad cards, and if you have a really good hand, there is actually a higher chance opponent doesn't have even average hand. But same works in opposite. If you have below average hand, chances are higher that opponent has above average hand.

I haven't played poker in a long time, so I can't really remember all the tricks. Math changes based on number of players, because more players means higher chance someone has a better hand than you do.

I buy the idea that AI is indeed doom for some people.

What I also realized is that a lot of people who oppose AI do so out of personal reasons.

AI didn't affect everyone positively.

Take for example, digital arts. Ever since AI appeared, these guys lost 30% of their income because why would someone pay someone to make digital art, when AI will do it for free.

Entire degrees in digital art went to waste, and people who today buy digital art are only doing so out of charity.

Today, if you want to be a digital artist, you cant be average. AI outperforms average. You need to be like way better than AI to merely survive.

Same applies to some other arts too. In past, people used to pay an artist to draw them. Today, you can just give photo to AI and have AI do it in few seconds, for free.

Artists are probably most negatively affected by AI out of all groups.

There are some other groups which were also negatively affected. Private instructors, such as instructors in English language, are also slowly being replaced. Advisors likewise.

Then there are also some people who were victim of AI, especially due to fact that AI can make porn out of anyone.

Then there is the predicted deepfake chaos. AI is being used to fabricate things, like AI being used to make fake photo of dead Benjamin Netanyahu. There are also social media accounts ran entirely by AI. Literally fake people and personalities on social media.

However, the main argument about AI taking jobs is that in past, machines used to replace unskilled labor, so unskilled workers got fired.

What's special about AI, is, that apparently, AI replaces both skilled and unskilled labor.

So there is I guess some fear that AI will replace everyone, because in future, there won't be a job AI can do.

However, I think people who make these arguments about jobs don't realize this isn't a bad thing. Having an AI worker to do job for me, actually sounds pretty good.

Creation of AI was really like opening a Pandora's box. Once opened, it cannot be closed. Everyone knows how to make AI. There is no way to effectively regulate or stop it.

So I am afraid that doomsayers better get used to AI, because it's not going to go away. Actually, from this point on, the only question will be who has a better supercomputer to host a better AI.

The idea that boycotting AI is gonna stop it, is silly at best.

AI is pretty much here to stay, and this is true even if all countries banned it.

Inductive reasoning doesn't yield absolute conclusions, and that is a strength of science not a flaw.

It is actually a flaw, because a lot of people get wrong conclusions due to induction.

"I was winning in gambling so far, so I will keep winning."

"I was safe when speeding in traffic so far, so I will keep being safe."

"I am smoking a lot and my lung health is great, so it will keep being great."

the problem with induction is in fact that its conclusion is not certain, so basing your thinking on that conclusion makes your thinking uncertain too. In simple terms, there is a decently high chance the conclusion is wrong. Even if that chance is merely 40%, it does make 40% of your conclusions wrong. And this chance of being wrong skyrockets the bigger the unobserved world is, and longer the unobserved time is. Its why I can make prediction that I will be alive tomorrow and have a reasonably high chance of being right, but same applied to next 40 years becomes less likely to be true, and we know this by observation of average population. However, when we dont know something based on observation even approximately, the chances of induction being wrong skyrocket. It becomes more like tossing a coin than doing probability predictions.

Making reasonable assumptions based on intuition. Like if you travel across the country and look online and everyone you see is cheering for a specific candidate and he won the last 10 elections in a row, he's more likely to win the election than the guy everyone says they hate.

that is probability based induction. I agree some induction has higher probability than other, mainly the one which repeats more and where place is same and time is not distant. Same claim about that man across 40 years future prediction would be less likely, as well as that man trying his chances in another country.

It doesnt really solve problem of science in cases where 99% of existence is not observed, because observed repetition compared to non-observed world is lower.

Those aren't rules of induction, those are rules of bad induction.

And what are rules of good induction? Do tell.

I think you are conflating induction with just bad argumentation/fallacies

No, the basic rule of induction is:

"A is observed to be true everywhere, so it is true everywhere (even in non-observed areas."

or time based:

"A is observed to be true in all times, so it is true in all times (even in non-observed times)."

While large scale induction does increase probability with more observations being made, probability which you talk about is strong specific time/place based induction.

Its like me saying "Sun will rise tomorrow". I have seen Sun rise in this place each day for thousands of days. there is a chance Sun might not rise tomorrow, there is a chance that one day Sun wont rise (and that day will happen too, science says) but I expect it will rise tomorrow because constant repetition increases probability of something repeating. It is a probabilistic based reasoning.

However, you miss the point which I was making, which wasnt about specific time/place induction.

I was talking about all time/all place induction.

Making claims about all of the unobserved world is not same as making claims about specific area/time.

Maybe guy who only saw black cats does live in an area where all cats are black. However, if he were to make induction that all cats are black, that would be clearly false, even if he never saw a non-black cat.

Science faces these same issues when making claims about all of unobserved world based on observed world. Generally, the greater the unobserved world is, higher the mistake rate.

But the principle itself is flawed regardless.

Saying "A is true in observed world = A is true in non-observed world" is a leap of faith.

Forecasters sometimes get things right. Sometimes they dont. Some who use effective deductive reasoning, using principles which always repeat and which are expected to repeat in specific area, are one thing. Its sort of like betting that Sun will rise tomorrow, when you already know it did rise each previous day. Making absolute claims about whole of universe based on tiny portion of universe? Entirely different area.

Maybe large scale induction increases probability of being correct in a specific area and specific time, but even that faces many issues, as we see in psychology and sociology which are soft induction based science which often get things wrong. Any time you see an article saying "5 habits of smart people, according to psychology", its really just probability based. It doesnt mean someone who doesnt have those habits is not smart, or that someone who has them is.

China leads the world in Solar energy use.

Not per capita.

It doesnt matter if you have most solar panels in the world, when your population is higher than in most of the world, hence more pollution despite all the solar energy.

A lot of people confuse induction for observation, but the two arent same thing. Definitions, induction, observation, deduction are all separate forms of logic.

Observation would be:

"All cats I saw so far are black."

Induction would be:

"All cats I saw so far are black, so all cats are black"

Definition would be:

"I defined cats as black, so all cats must be black by definition"

Deduction would be:

"All cats I saw so far were black, so one cat I also saw before must be black."

Out of all of these, induction is weakest. Definition is at least true by definition. However, induction cannot even be proved by induction itself, or anything else.

Your post is specifically blaming the issue on inductive logic even though we both agree that the issue is with the argument and not the logic used.

Inductive logic is defined as an argument, the specific argument which I said is flawed. If issue is with the argument, its also issue with inductive logic defined by it.

"since we can convert inductive logic to deductive logic without changing the argument, we can do the same there."

Converting inductive logic to deductive logic does nothing to solve problem. Deductive logic which uses inductive logic (specific to general) will always face same issue.

I think you clearly agree with this, since your posts are based on examples and not collections of syllogisms. Heck, your initial post is almost entirely inductive logic.

No, my posts are deductive logic, not inductive. It may seem like "inductive logic" because I used examples, but examples dont make something inductive logic.

If I tried to prove the claim "all cats are black" as false, I would merely need one example of a cat which is not black. this is not "specific to general" inductive logic. this is "specific negating general" deductive logic.

Sort of like:

P1. All A are B.

P2. Some A are not B

One of these two must be false, by law of identity.

If I really needed to put my argument in pure deduction form without observations, it is that:

"A true in specific conditions = A true in all conditions" is an unproved premise which doesnt result from law of identity.

Its like saying "Some A are B = All A are B".

Conclusion doesnt follow, even if we dont use all the obvious examples where this specific logic is blatantly proved false. Law of identity simply cannot prove it, where in opposite case:

"All A are B = Some A are B"

Conclusion follows by law of identity.

to be clear, "=" in this case is forward deductive chain. It doesnt go backwards. A = B isnt same as B = A.

My point is the issue isn't unique to inductive reasoning

Of course, but it still remains an issue.

Also you will always have unproved premises in order to avoid circular reasoning or an infinite chain.

this is where I disagree. If starting premise is based on laws of logic, or on point that violations of laws of logic are a fallacy, starting premise is always true to anyone who accepts that logic exists and is a foundation of everything.

the only way to disagree with starting premise which is logical law,

such as:

A = A,

A = / = Not A (Law of non-contradiction, which foundation for contradiction is derived from),

A true under all conditions = A true under specific condition,

A true in all places = A true in specific place,

A true at all times = A true in specific time

is to abandon logic itself. I am comfortable if my debating opponent says he abandons logic.

As I said, the problem with induction is that it takes a different path from established logical law on deduction.

Established logical law of deduction is:

"A true in all conditions = A true in specific conditions"

or

"A true in each part of B = A true in specific part of B"

Socrates is human. (A is specific part of B)

All humans are mortal. (all parts of B are mortal)

Socrates is mortal. (specific part of B is mortal)

this is general to specific.

Induction is the other way around:

"A true under specific conditions = A true in all conditions"

If A does not conform to A then it is no longer A.

Yes, that is the most common critique of induction. Its that it doesnt follow law of identity (A = A).

While sometimes there is a strong induction, such as A which repeats everywhere and each time in same way, such induction only belongs to those hard science categories, and even there its not always consistent.

Induction is basically assuming that if A repeats here, it will repeat elsewhere too.

Sort of like, if truck moves 5 meters a second, it will travel 50 meters in 10 seconds. this is assumed true everywhere on Earth, and for a long time it was considered universally true until concept of wrapping spacetime, warp drive (from Star trek) and alcubierre drive came to mind, where something which normally travels 5 meters per second can at same time travel faster than that if spacetime is wrapped. Its sort of like making path shorter instead of increasing movement speed.

15 what?

Debby sometimes hallucinates. Happens to a lot of AI models.

Proper deduction moves from general to specific. When it moves from specific to general, thats induction or pattern generalization.

Isn't this deductive reasoning?

P1: If A was true everywhere we observed, A is true everywhere

P2: A was true everywhere we observed.

C: A is true everywhere

It's bad reasoning, but deductive reasoning is only as good as it's premises.

Deductive reasoning is only one half of the equation. You can have perfectly valid deductive reasoning which is at same time completely absurd. Let me demonstrate:

P1. If flowers exist, then I am God

P2. Flowers exist

C. I am God

Now, this is perfectly valid deductive reasoning. Conclusion naturally flows from premises. Yet premise 1 is obviously unproved, making this deductive argument not proved true.

However, moving from specific to general is not deduction. Its how induction is defined. You may call it deductive argument, but its still definition of induction.

today, there are 7 year olds with 2 smartphones, tablet and computer, bicycle and electric scooter, and they want more.

I am sure 70 years ago, people were happy to just being able to own a radio or tv, and kids were happy if they got even one doll (which looked more like a bad piece of surreal art than a doll kids today would want).

No one wants a radio today, and kids want bunch of toys of high quality.

I guess when new things come, old technology and old lifestyle become a lot less interesting.