3 ms·
Not sure, but I can use deduction: 1) If induction is valid, then it follows that we can use induction to reason about the world. 2) But we can't use it to rea
by jonbarker 8y ago
Not sure, but I can use deduction: 1) If induction is valid, then it follows that we can use induction to reason about the world. 2) But we can't use it to reason about the world, 3) so it isn't valid. (Modus Tollens) This is valid, but not necessarily sound. Soundness implies that first two statements (premises) are also true. The second premise is clearly not true, because we use induction to reason all the time. So the conclusion #3, while it follows as a valid argument, cannot be said to be a 'sound conclusion.'
- lisper 8y ago> we use induction to reason all the time Yes, people use all kinds of invalid reasoning techniques and fall victim to a wide variety of logical fallacies and cognitive biases. That doesn't mean that any of them are valid.
- jonbarker 8y agoI think you are expecting the term 'validity' to mean more than what it technically means to people in philosophy, which is that it 'adheres to the form of either Modus Ponens or Modus Tollens'. Colloquially it has come to mean more like what soundness means, which is valid but also with true premises.
- lisper 8y agoI don't want to quibble over terminology. Inductive reasoning is wrong. Mistaken. Bogus. Intellectually bankrupt. Utterly without redeeming value of any kind. As likely to lead to correct conclusions as reading Tarot cards (which is to say, the probability is higher than 0, but not by a wide enough margin to have any utility).