3 ms·

Does explanatory theory make use of observation? Because based on the the wiki page for inductive reasoning, if you use observations for evidence, then you are

Does explanatory theory make use of observation? Because based on the the wiki page for inductive reasoning, if you use observations for evidence, then you are using inductive reasoning to some capacity.

lisper 8y ago
Well, what I really mean by "induction" is what it means in the paper pointed to by the OP, i.e. the paper entitled "The new riddle of induction." I pointed to the wikipedia article just to contrast that with mathematical induction, which is NOT what I or anyone else is talking about here. Yes, explanatory theories rely on observations. But they are not just straightforward extrapolations of the form, "Because we have observed something N times (e.g. we have seen N green emeralds) we can reliably conclude that we will continue to observe it (e.g. all emeralds are green)."
- sonusario 8y ago
  > Yes, explanatory theories rely on observations. But they are not just straightforward extrapolations of the form, "Because we have observed something N times (e.g. we have seen N green emeralds) we can reliably conclude that we will continue to observe it (e.g. all emeralds are green)." Interesting. I will need to look further into explanatory theories, because my current understanding tells me that anything that uses observational evidence is inductive (even without following the "observed something N times" form).
  - lisper 8y ago
    You can choose to lump Popperian epistemology (what I have been calling "explanatory theories") together with other kinds of inductive reasoning, but that misses the point. If you cast your linguistic net wide enough, then there are a lot of different kinds of inductive reasoning. But only one of them actually works, and it's not the one that Goodman uses. At that point calling them both "inductive" robs the word of its utility.

3 ms·

Does explanatory theory make use of observation? Because based on the the wiki page for inductive reasoning, if you use observations for evidence, then you are

by sonusario 8y ago

lisper 8y ago
Well, what I really mean by "induction" is what it means in the paper pointed to by the OP, i.e. the paper entitled "The new riddle of induction." I pointed to the wikipedia article just to contrast that with mathematical induction, which is NOT what I or anyone else is talking about here. Yes, explanatory theories rely on observations. But they are not just straightforward extrapolations of the form, "Because we have observed something N times (e.g. we have seen N green emeralds) we can reliably conclude that we will continue to observe it (e.g. all emeralds are green)."
- sonusario 8y ago
  > Yes, explanatory theories rely on observations. But they are not just straightforward extrapolations of the form, "Because we have observed something N times (e.g. we have seen N green emeralds) we can reliably conclude that we will continue to observe it (e.g. all emeralds are green)." Interesting. I will need to look further into explanatory theories, because my current understanding tells me that anything that uses observational evidence is inductive (even without following the "observed something N times" form).
  - lisper 8y ago
    You can choose to lump Popperian epistemology (what I have been calling "explanatory theories") together with other kinds of inductive reasoning, but that misses the point. If you cast your linguistic net wide enough, then there are a lot of different kinds of inductive reasoning. But only one of them actually works, and it's not the one that Goodman uses. At that point calling them both "inductive" robs the word of its utility.