Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Logical Foundations of Induction

Philosophy Forum
» Logic
» Logical Foundations of Induction

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

Muslim Philosopher, for those interested:

Logical Foundations of Induction

The basic thesis of this book is that the same logic of induction on which scientific methodology is based can be used to prove the existence of God. The implication of this work is far reaching, for it attempts to layout a unifying, common basis of research in religion, social sciences, and natural sciences.

- D3athlig3r Smile

@d3athlig3r,

Quote:

Consequently, it may be said that formal logic regards imperfect induction as a ground of science, if experience as previously defined, is added; that is if we add, to observation of several instances , the a priori principle that chance cannot happen permanently and systematically.

If we add.......

@d3athlig3r,

So... you found some muslim philosopher (allegedly) that wants to argue his religion and engage in a bit of epistemology, as well as argue that science and religion are consistent and inseparable and stuff? Well, one cannot say that he doesn't set himself goals! And in so few words even! In any case, he didn't do it well as he simply tried to justify induction with deduction (probability theory etc.). Instead he should see if there is really a need to justify induction in the first place, and at the same time see if there is a need to justify deduction. It is odd (in a sense - Hume is responsible for this mess!) that induction is often questioned but deduction is not, yet they are so similar. They are both cornerstones of human rationality and are indispensable.

@d3athlig3r,

I think induction is a crucial issue. No doubt induction is necessary for survival, but is it and can it be logically justified? Is logic anything more than tautology? What percentage of human opinions are logically justified? If the percentage is small, does this matter much? Do we need logical justification?

Personally I think we live by induction and pragmatism, and that this is more than enough for practical purposes. I argue that (tauto-)logical justification is largely motivated by the pleasure we take in perfect or near perfect coherence. Perhaps logic is really an ideal toward which rhetoric strives, achieving this goal only at the point of tautology, which is largely useless outside of mathematics. That is if one thinks of mathematics as tautological. I argue that tautology/identity/unity is prior to all other conception.

@d3athlig3r,

Lol, don't get me wrong, I only posted it so that if philosophers here are interested in widening their view on the gap between religion and science could read it. Personally, I haven't read the entire book yet, I find it has some concepts (calculus etc.) that I haven't studied yet, hence I cant understand the book completely.

Emil you make a good point. You can't really judge the book until you read it entirely, hehe.

Also, I am thinking, dont most "western philosophers" work with logical justification?

EDIT: @ reconstructo, the book is translated from arabic surely, so that would explain it I think.

@d3athlig3r,

d3athlig3r;173179 wrote:

EDIT: @ reconstructo, the book is translated from arabic surely, so that would explain it I think.

Actually, I think it goes much deeper than the book. I feel that induction is not closely examined in general. Just so you know, I meant no attack of any kind on your for posting that interesting article. Thanks! I hope this thread becomes a discussion about induction. Smile

@d3athlig3r,

Is an ellipse (...) indicative of an induction?

And ellipse doesn't seem to be equivalent with etcetera (etc.), imo.

@jack phil,

jack;173254 wrote:

Is an ellipse (...) indicative of an induction?

And ellipse doesn't seem to be equivalent with etcetera (etc.), imo.

I was just sort of letting the reader draw conclusions, pointing out that the quote required an addition which did not seem logically justified. And that quote came from the O.P. mentioned paper.

@d3athlig3r,

I was just thinking of this movie I saw recently, the Oxford Murders. It was total crap, but opened with a scene with Wittgenstein in WWI (albeit exaggerated, it was not too far from the truth).

But in the movie they mention Wittgenstein's paradox (which I think was an artistic leisure, and may be another philosophers paradox or something, but then I could be wrong. but that is all besides the point.). Witt's paradox, in the movie, was that a sequence of numbers, such as [1,2,3] actually has many different possibilities as the next symbol.

But then, maybe I really was responding to your first post. Spooky! ;P

@jack phil,

jack;173275 wrote:

I was just thinking of this movie I saw recently, the Oxford Murders. It was total crap, but opened with a scene with Wittgenstein in WWI (albeit exaggerated, it was not too far from the truth).

But in the movie they mention Wittgenstein's paradox (which I think was an artistic leisure, and may be another philosophers paradox or something, but then I could be wrong. but that is all besides the point.). Witt's paradox, in the movie, was that a sequence of numbers, such as [1,2,3] actually has many different possibilities as the next symbol.

But then, maybe I really was responding to your first post. Spooky! ;P

I think I know what you are saying by the sequence thing. We aren't talking about natural numbers but about finding patterns? And induction? Yes, I agree with Witt. The pattern can never be established with certainty, because induction is not tautology.

You know, I wasn't sure what you meant in that other post. But I was too vague in my first post in any case. Smile

Philosophy Forum
» Logic
» Logical Foundations of Induction

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Logical Foundations of Induction

Quick Links

My Account

able2know