Talk:Inductive reasoning

message: In the introduction of the article, the term "tokens" is used without explanation.  Could the writer please explain it or use a simpler term?  Peter Johnson 64.231.45.249 04:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  jargon 

message: I find the sentence (in the section ==Validity==)
The writer John Barnes outlined a third method of reasoning, called "abduction", in his book Finity ...
highly questionable. --Arno Matthias 23:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And so it has been removed. Feel free to be a little bold the next time a random anon adds nonsense to an article. Simões (talk/contribs) 00:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...well... I haven't read "Finity"... maybe it is pure genius... --Arno Matthias 14:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I never know what to do with the phrase "to my knowledge". Is this meant as "to the best of my knowledge", or "to my certain knowledge"? (The preceding post was left unsigned and undated. Edit history shows it to have been added 25 April 2007 by 87.79.208.178.) Milkunderwood (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

text: I agree that this needs further clarification.  Djmarsay (talk) 15:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  abduction 

message: This article states many facts, of who said what, without proper citations, of where and when. Please help to improve.
- 89.247.34.119 20:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: The explanation for the following example of "strong induction" seems unclear:
"All observed crows are black.
therefore
All crows are black.
This exemplifies the nature of induction: inducing the universal from the particular. However, the conclusion is not certain.
Unless we can systematically verify the possibility of crows of another color, the statement may actually be false."
The problem is that the syntax of the final sentence--which I take to mean that we can legitimately conclude "all crows are black" from the fact that "all observed crows are black" ONLY if "we can systematically verify the [IMPOSSIBILITY] of crows of another color"--makes it difficult to untangle the logic of the resulting statement. If I follow the argument correctly, I believe the sentence should read:  "Unless we can systematically verify the IMPOSSIBLITY of crows of another color, the statement may actually be false."
Califgrll 21:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does my inclusion of Keynes' notion of 'probability' help? Djmarsay (talk) 15:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear explanation - "strong induction" 

message: I notice there are a whopping 34 citations for the last sentence in the introduction, and none anywhere else.  Does this strike anyone else as odd?  --Wayne Miller 15:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's clearly an overkill, just a few of the most significant ones should be left. Reinistalk 23:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: This article could use a general edit I think - though I am unqualified to do it.  the following paragraph was particulary opaque to me:
It is however possible to derive a true statement using inductive reasoning if you know the conclusion. The only way to have an efficient argument by induction is for the known conclusion to be able to be true only if an unstated external conclusion is true, from which the initial conclusion was built and has certain criteria to be met in order to be true (separate from the stated conclusion). By substitution of one conclusion for the other, you can inductively find out what evidence you need in order for your induction to be true. For example, you have a window that opens only one way, but not the other. Assuming that you know that the only way for that to happen is that the hinges are faulty, inductively you can postulate that the only way for that window to be fixed would be to apply oil (whatever will fix the unstated conclusion). From there on you can successfully build your case. However, if your unstated conclusion is false, which can only be proven by deductive reasoning, then your whole argument by induction collapses. Thus ultimately, pure inductive reasoning does not exist.
Thanks! Cyclopsface 21:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The intro, especially the sentence with 34 citations, is currently an attack. It lacks a balance which John Awbrey's edits once provided, as this is only one type of reasoning cataloged by C. S. Peirce. --Ancheta Wis 10:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Lacks Clarity 

message: There are a number problems here, some debatable, some not.
There are two main types of induction.  One is mathematical and produces certain results, and the other basically says (for example) that since the sun has not failed to rise every 24 hours or so, it will not fail to rise within the next 24 hours.  In Principles of Mathematics (1903), Bertrand Russell calls mathematical induction "disguised deduction" and the other kind of induction he calls a method of making guesses.  The first characterization is debatable, the second is not.
So the editorial claim, "Inductive reasoning is the complement of deductive reasoning." is at least imprecise.
Mathematical induction has been used when a set is constructed from an initial state and a generative principle, and it can be shown that all members of the set must have a particular property.  Also proofs using mathematical induction use the natural numbers for the incremental and ordinal properties of the set, but mathematical induction is not a statement about the natural numbers per se (as stated in the entry on that subject).
The other kind of induction has been used when we project a trend.  Neither mathematical induction nor the other kind of induction has anything to do with syllogisms or argument by authority.  I haven't read the (what 5 with virtually the same title?) Popper articles, but I suspect some of the things being classed as induction are there because someone wants to declare that only deduction is logically valid and therefore lumps anything they consider not logical (i.e. the complement) into "induction".
Returning to syllogisms, deductive reasoning has syllogism as a result, but syllogism is not deductive reasoning per se (in the sense that Sherlock Holmes uses the phrase).  Literal deduction consists in eliminating all impossible conclusions, leaving the set of possible conclusions.
Abductive reasoning is much closer to what is called statistical syllogism (though not as statistical syllogism is represented on this page).  It consists of interpreting a large number of facts to infer a consistent general principle.  Abduction usually appears in the context of diagnosis; so it is usually concerned with discerning causal principles.
Umberto Eco (possibly originally from Charles Peirce.  Sorry, I don't recall the citation - probably Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language) described the three thus (I'm paraphrasing and augmenting):
Deduction proceeds from certain general qualities to certain logical cases to specific factual inferences.
Induction proceeds from specific facts to categorical cases to inferring general principles.
Abduction proceeds from specific facts to consistent general principles without inferring cases.
All this differentiation is subject to the same debate that Russell introduced (if he was the one who originally introduced it - I don't know), but it is almost certainly true that calling induction the complement of deduction is misleading and organizes the entries incorrectly.
Kikilamb 20:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Russell followed Keynes on induction. Djmarsay (talk) 15:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent Treatment, Factual, and Technical Errors 

message: "Authority" in this context is a social status.  There are many rationales for designating an authority, such as "Religious text X said so.", "My father said so, and my father wouldn't lie to me.", or the given rationale "The source has been truthful in the past."
It is one thing for us to say that a source has been truthful in the past and therefore they will probably be truthful in the future, and it is another to say that a source has been truthful in the past and therefore they are probably being truthful now.  The latter is not a type of reasoning; in fact, it is an abdication of reasoning.  On that basis, all designators of authority/oraclehood in this context, including ones that seem inductive, I call rationalizations rather than reasons.  Since this is not reasoning, it cannot be some subtype of reasoning; and specifically, it is not inductive reasoning.
On that basis I have deleted the subentry.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kikilamb (talk • contribs) 21:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argument by Authority 

message: Under "Validity"
"By substitution of one conclusion for the other, you can inductively find out what evidence you need in order for your induction to be true. For example, you have a window that opens only one way, but not the other. Assuming that you know that the only way for that to happen is that the hinges are faulty, inductively you can postulate that the only way for that window to be fixed would be to apply oil (whatever will fix the unstated conclusion). From there on you can successfully build your case. However, if your unstated conclusion is false, which can only be proven by deductive reasoning, then your whole argument by induction collapses." - I assume it's possible that the falseness of the unstated conclusion could also be determined thru experimental evidence (direct sensual knowing), or is evidence considered part of deductive reasoning?  You try oiling the hinge but the window still isn't fixed, obviously (before formal reasoning can take place) oiling didn't fix the window, or, inductively, an alternate hypothesis as to what will fix the window is generated - "hitting the window hinge with a hammer will fix this". --69.243.168.118 (talk) 03:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deductive reasoning vs experimental evidence 

message: re:
Sextus Empiricus questioned how the truth of the universal can be established by examining some of the particulars. Examining all the particulars is difficult as they are infinite in number.  
Can anybody explain what is meant by the term "the universal" in the above sentence?  As the term is usually used a universal is not something which could be either true or false.  The definition of universal provided at universals seems fair enough:-
In metaphysics, a universal is a what particular things have in common, namely characteristics or qualities. In other words, universals are repeatable or recurrent entities that can be instantiated or exemplified by many particular things.
On that definition a universal is not a truth-bearer/not the sort of thing that can be true or false.
--Philogo 12:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sextus Empiricus is referring to things that are univerally true (true in all cases) rather than things that are only true in particular cases (under some circumstances, such as those one has observed). --Llewdor (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: ?"truth of the universal"?

message: The refs section of this article is terrible. It has tons of references about inductive probability, and little to nothing on anything else. I don't have the background to select good references on inductive reasoning, but I strongly feel we should
cut all but a few important refs on inductive probability and add refs on inductive reasoning in general. 99.233.26.121 (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Refs need fixing

message: I'm no logician, but I can't help but notice that "odd + odd = even" is given as an example of inductive reasoning, but this can be mathematically proven.  Mathematical proofs are deductive, so it would seem to me this example is flawed. 12.216.1.235 (talk) 05:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Odd and even example

message: I don't want to introduce original research here, but maybe somebody knows some source to be pointed to here, or can explain how to categorize a thought I've had.  It seems to me that one important form of inductive reasoning is what I am tempted to call a "defeasible argument;" perhaps also a "ceteris paribus argument."  That is, premise set S supports conclusion C, so that, if nothing else is relevant, then C follows.  But of course there might be some other facts defeating the argument or supporting a contrary conclusion more strongly, which is why this is an inductive and not a deductive form.  This often occurs in ethics, when clashing values are at stake, but can also occur in other cases.  For example:
experiment X suggests that light is made of particles, so it is made of particles
(other data may suggest otherwise, of course)
euthanasia may reduce pain and suffering; this is good, so euthanasia should be allowed
(other values may be defeated by this, however)
etc.--ScottForschler (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Keynes and Russell regard an inductive argument as showing that something is probable relative to the evidence. Does that help? Djmarsay (talk) 15:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: New induction form?

message: To my understanding all science is inductive, it is simply that the statements who’s validity derives by inductive reasoning come to be the a priori axioms of the particular science. Anyways, another thing: I added template  on section Validity on the phrase “some philosophers” because I’d really like to know who they are. Thanks.--Vanakaris (talk) 09:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you cite any sorces for your understanding that all science is inductive?--Philogo (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Keynes, Russell and Whitehead all argue that the findings of science are necessarily dependent on induction, but the application of science needn't be. So it depends on what you think counts as 'doing science'. Djmarsay (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: <nowiki>{{Who?}}</nowiki>

message: I couldn't help but notice that *infer* is used in several places in the article.  Isn't inference inherently DEductive, or is there a subtlety I'm missing?
In the first para:
"This ice is cold.
...to infer general propositions such as:
All ice is cold."
I suggest replacing the word (by those more knowledgeable of logic than I) infer with something like 'reach'.
"to reach general propositions"...
68.102.45.46 (talk) 16:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Inference is not necessarily deductive. "Inductive inference" is a phrase frequently used in popular accounts as well as the literature on Bayesian inference, prediction theory, AI, etc. Wikipedia has a page on it with a few references: Inductive inference. earwicker (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The use of the word 'infer'

message: This part of the article seems somewhat imprecise: It merely gives a (relatively) strong case of inductive inference, and a particularly weak one, without discussing the factors proposed to scale with the strength of induction. Also, the titles are particularly poorly conceived, since strong induction and weak induction have already been coined to defined deductive(ish) mathematical versions of proof. So I suggest:
Firstly a change of title in this section to Strength of Induction.
Secondly the introduction of the factors which are supposed to increase the strength of a particular inductive inference from (e.g.) observations of As which are X to the conclusion that all As are X, namely:
1.The number of observed cases of As which are X.
2.The variety of different situations in which As were observed to be X.
3.The general consistency with other beliefs held of the result that all As are X.
followed by a discussion of the motivations of each of these factors, including examples.
I would do this myself but I'm not really qualified to, and don't really know how to edit. 163.1.167.195 (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strong Induction; Weak Induction 

message: I added the example of swans, supposedly the standard example of inductive reasoning. The examples given a number of lines below may be confusing because they relate to subjective observations - which is not the point here.
In my perception, the first paragraph of a lemma should tell the reader what "induction" is - which is imho explained easier by an example than by a formal definition. Details should follow.
Rbakels (talk) 09:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I split examples from definition. I think giving a fairly complete definition and then a clarifying example reads easier than sticking an example in the middle of trying to describe what it is. I still think the section reads a bit awkward, so feel free to continue to rearrange it. GManNickG (talk) 10:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swans 

message: At the bottom of the introduction it says "Though many dictionaries define inductive reasoning as reasoning that derives general principles from specific observations, this usage is outdated". Does this really mean "this usage is outdated" (i.e. at some point in the past this was a valid meaning of "inductive reasoning", but it no longer is), or does it mean "this is an incorrect usage which was more common in the past than it is now"? I think it means the latter, but it would be useful to clarify this. If the former, it really opens a can of worms because some of the references in the article are from previous centuries when perhaps the "outdated" meaning would have been intended. 95.149.106.210 (talk) 21:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you read the cited source for this i.e.
 
— Philogos (talk)  22:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As Kusername has explained below, the "counterexamples" given by the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy do not really work the way its author intended, and they fail to demonstrate why the usage in question is supposed to be outdated. Given that the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy is the lone reference supporting the usage being outdated, and this reference itself admits that this "outdated" usage is common, I find it hard to justify in the Wikipedia article that the usage is indeed clearly outdated, without further qualification. In fact, to me personally it seems more likely that the usage is not outdated at all, and that the author of the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy is simply confused about the matter. However, given that the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a reference, rather than simply deleting the offending passage I have weakened it to show that there are dissenting opinions on the matter. Elanguescence (talk) 12:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please clarify "outdated" 

message: As someone who has never taken a course in logic, the first sentence is extremely unhelpful. To me it could as easily read, "Kraft brand Macaroni and Cheese is macaroni combined with cheese, sold under the Kraft brand name." Can anyone write an introductory sentence that doesn't seem so circular? A similar complaint was made on the discussion page for the Deductive Reasoning article, section 'Awful First Page'. Vikingurinn (talk) 09:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Keynes, Russell etc take a different view. They also claim that any attempt to 'define' induction is necessarily circular. I think the article needs to cover all usages. I have tried to clarify things in my recent updates. Djmarsay (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inductive reasoning vs inductive arguments 

message: Are all 3 of the following , taken from the article, examples of inductive reasoning
"This is an example of inductive reasoning:
90% of humans are right-handed.
Joe is a human.
Therefore, the probability that Joe is right-handed is 90%. (See section on Statistical syllogism.)
Probability is employed, for example, in the following argument:
Every life form we know of depends on liquid water to exist.
All life depends on liquid water to exist.
However, induction is employed in the following argument:
Every life form that everyone knows of depends on liquid water to exist.
Therefore, all known life depends on liquid water to exist."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.12.9.34 (talk) 06:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Good example. Keynes and Russell would argue that the conclusion could be made a valid induction not only for all known life but for all life, but you would need to include a hypothesis (such as 'the uniformity of nature') that might rather beg the question. Thus rather than ask if the conclusion is valid one asks if the argument is, and it might be if you make its assumptions explicit, as they seek to do. Djmarsay (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear examples 

message: A citation is needed because the cited biases are not specific to induction  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertttt (talk • contribs) 11:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  the cited biases are not specific to induction 

message: "Note that this definition of inductive reasoning excludes mathematical induction, which is considered to be a form of deductive reasoning."
Huh? More context or explanation is needed.
67.172.162.207 (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: the phrase "mathematical induction" is a misnomer. it's not using inductive reasoning, but rather it's using deductive reasoning. it's just called mathematical induction.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.102.88 (talk) 00:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inductive definition excludes induction but is deductive...round and round we go 

message: As already objected above, here, too the reference is not verifyable. The sentence, "Unlike deductive arguments, inductive reasoning allows for the possibility that the conclusion is false, even if all of the premises are true." could not be fathomed in the adduced "John Vickers. The Problem of Induction. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)".195.4.79.241 (talk) 14:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Does my reference to Keynes and Russell help? Djmarsay (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Inductive vs. deductive reasoning" 

message: Hi,
I just wanted to say that as an animist I take great offence to the example, 100% of life forms are based on liquid water. 
Since in the animist, or traditional view of the world, many things are alive, including stars, rocks, and even computers.  
It is also the case that in other religions such as Christianity, Islam and whichever that have spiritual life forms such as God, Angels and the like. 
So that example of "100% of life forms" really Only applies to materialist atheist world-view which is a tiny percentage of the population.  
Perhaps there are some better examples that can be made?  Or perhaps it can be made more specific 100% of known Biological life forms are based on h2o.  
Elspru (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  liquid life example 

message: Mathematical induction is treated as separate, but if maths is based on logic, mathematical induction should be an example of inductive reasoning, and should not (if this article is correct) produce certain conclusions.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: After the invention and labeling of Mathematical induction, the discussion about how "deduction" and "induction" should best be understood went on. Today, mathematical induction is no longer categorized as induction, but for historical reasons kept its name. Just read the introduction to Mathematical induction. It says there "Although its namesake may suggest otherwise, mathematical induction should not be misconstrued as a form of inductive reasoning (also see Problem of induction). Mathematical induction is an inference rule used in proofs. In mathematics, proofs including those using mathematical induction are examples of deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning is excluded from proofs." --Arno Matthias (talk) 12:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting aspects mentioned here. How about the use of finite enumerative induction such as proof by exhaustion in mathematical proofs? Unlike proof by exhaustion, mathematical induction is a form of a infinite (number of cases) complete induction. These aspects should be mentioned in article.--5.2.200.163 (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mathematical Induction? 

message: I invite comments on a proposed revision of Instrumentalism, incorporating the conflicting roles of Popper and Dewey in defining the movement and its dependence on induction, and showing current practice of those roles.  See talk: Instrumentalism, entries 20 and 21.TBR-qed (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  making instrumentalism relevant 

message: Since the time of Plato, philosophers held that for a belief to qualify as Knowledge, it had to meet a standard of faultlessness they called "Certainty". This was done by philosophers as a means of pre-emptively silencing any and all would-be critics, by proving a means by which philosophers could impugn critics' intelligence. With the emergence of Modern-Era Science and its all-too-obvious success, Philosophy's too-narrow conception of Knowledge threatened to render Philosophy laughably irrelevant and solopsistic. John Locke endeavored to resolve this issue by first, dropping the term "Knowledge" in favor of the more flexible term "Understanding," and then boldly arguing the all such Understanding was based on sense experience and powers of the mind/induction. However, the world was not ready for Locke, and David Hume reversed all of Locke's progress by reinstating the sclerotic standard of certainty whose pedigree can be traced back to Parmenides. The failure to recognize this critique of Induction as the reneging on the 2,000 years of human progress that it is just shows how powerful the God of Absolute Certainty truly is.
Trentamj (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, are you going to profess to know when one does NOT know? MaynardClark (talk) 02:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

text: Do the recent references to Russell, who has similar views to yours, adequately cover your concerns? Djmarsay (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Article Is Completely Enslaved to an Ancient Notion of Certainty 

message: Every swan I have ever seen was white therefore I expect that all swans are white is an example of fuzzy logic not inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning tells you whether something is a reasonable possibility or not. It is based on cause and effect. The example of what killed the dinosaurs is a perfect example of inductive reasoning. Just granpa (talk) 11:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: See the characterisation of 'inductive reasoning' in the preamble. Maybe we need a section on fuzzy logic? Djmarsay (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fuzzy logic 

message: It seems like we've got a whole bunch of people here that need to go and actually do some coursework on methods, then to stop by and realise like Guba and Lincoln implored the rest of the scientific community in the 1970s roughly 50 years ago now that not all problems in life can be or should be solved with objectivity when there is so much subjectivity in life and the objectivists are missing out on the rainbow. Personal anecdote: Meeting a psychologist whose mind exploded when they were told about neuroplasticity the first time because it didn't fit in their black and white box that the brain in certain circumstances can actually regenerate itself. They soon developed a good case of chicken little syndrome and that was the end of that discussion in a matter of brevity.{
You're simply missing out and should then come back here with a refreshed view on the matter once you've actually been out there, been to school and studied methods as you should have done at some point in your post-graduate career and then you should come back with a refreshed and rationalised world view. The force of the objectivists is strong on this one. I would quite like to see an objectivist quantify their reasoning on life matters such as "how to prepare a three course meal for a wide range of people with differing opinions about Neoconservatism, Communism and Rastafarianism.' Of course that is nothing more than an absurdism but you get the point. Seriously we can't solve the entire worlds problems with scientific objectivism. Some people need to get a grip. It is none the less fun to sit back and watch the brains of objectivists fall out of their heads if you can't quantifiably measure a social experiment as per above. It's like your parents took away all your fun toys as kids and put you in an electroshock box with nothing other than trigonometry papers. Objectivists seriously have no chill sometimes. 
Please take this as a light hearted dig rather than a serious attempt at bad faith  and more so please see this as a reminder of what you're missing out on when you choose to give up life's subjectivism. --1.120.150.50 (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is full of weasel words that induction produces nothing more than logical fallacies. 

message: What is the difference between "if A is true then that would cause B, C, and D to be true" and "if A is true then by the laws of cause-and-effect B, C, and D will necesarily be true"? If not by the laws of cause-and-effect then by what for Gods sake? Just granpa (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The former sentence avoids the terms "law" and "necessarily"; this was the motivation for me to restore it on 12 Oct. Following e.g. David Hume#Induction and causation, I think these terms shouldn't be used in the context of inductive reasoning. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 23:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

text: This usage seems okay technically, but potentially confusing. I would delete a lot of this stuff, but maybe it helps some? Djmarsay (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: cause-and-effect

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Inductive reasoning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927003210/http://www.uncg.edu/phi/phi115/induc4.htm to http://www.uncg.edu/phi/phi115/induc4.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This encyclopedia accepts the premise of enumerative induction that the more editors who agree on the content of an article, the more accurate and useful that content.  Induction is practiced on every TALK page.  Editors generalize from a few observations, and deduce concrete conclusions from their generalizations.
WP contains 4 repetitive and fragmentary articles on induction: [Inductive reasoning], [The problem of induction]; [New riddle of induction],[Inductivism].  I would like to rectify this chaotic situation by rewriting and merging these 4 articles, retaining only the reasoning title.  I ask you—a participant in relevant TALK pages—to judge my rewrite/merge project: SHOULD I PROCEED?  Below is the current proposed outline:
Definitions.  Induction generalizes conceptually; deduction concludes empirically.
[David Hume], philosopher condemner.
[Pierre Duhem], physicist user.
[John Dewey], philosopher explainer.
[Bertrand Russell], philosopher condemner.
[Karl Popper], philosopher condemner.
Steven Sloman, psychologist explainer.
Lyle E. Bourne, Jr., psychologist user.
[Daniel Kahneman], psychologist user.
[Richard H. Thaler] economist user.
Please respond at [Inductive reasoning]: Talk.TBR-qed (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify, he wants to merge Inductive reasoning, The problem of induction, New riddle of induction, and Inductivism. To merge articles you should follow the procedures at WP:MERGE. - Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: THANK YOU.  I WOULD FOLLOW THE RULES.TBR-qed (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

text: The same discussion text can be found at the talk pages Natural_kind, Generalization, Categorization, Classification, Instrumentalism, Instrumental_and_value_rationality, Fact–value_distinction, Situational_logic, Abductive_reasoning, Scientific_realism. It is not quite clear whether some of these are intended to be merge, too. I'd welcome a commont of  on that. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 12:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: PROPOSED MERGE OF 4 CONSIDERED RELEVANT TO OTHER TOPICS.TBR-qed (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

text: PLEASE SPECIFY WHERE YOU FIND STYLE INAPPROPRIATE.TBR-qed (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not intend to try to teach you how to write for Wikipedia in this venue, however, here are a few points that are not necessarily most important, just what I noticed and can articulate. You use the lead to introduce the subject with information not in the body of the article. The lead should summarize the article. See Wikipedia:Lead dos and don'ts You put evaluations and opinions in Wikipedia's voice. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Explanation of the neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ You seem prone to puffery, like you are selling the subject. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Puffery Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not asking you to tutor me.  I am asking for examples of errors you think I have committed, so that I can judge your judgments.TBR-qed (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

text: THE REVISION INTENDS TO ADDRESS CURRENT DEBATES, WITH CRITICISM OF INSTRUMENTALISM. TBR-qed (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooops, my fault. I put it back, into an own section: Talk:Instrumentalism#Criticism. Sorry for the confusion. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 14:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

text: THANKS. USEFUL OBSERVATIONS. TBR-qed (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

text: CORRECT.  BUT IT CAN BE. TBR-qed (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP DEPENDS ON INDUCTION & DEDUCTION.  THEIR MEANING SHOULD BE FIRM. 

message: If serving life is our raison d'etre, then "western civilization's" observances of inductive reasoning almost completely miss the rather obvious truth that in order to ethically/logically progress toward least work/cost/harm strategies to serve life, we must eventually sculpt a working definition of inductive reasoning as absolutely crucial and fundamental to our progress toward any/all achievements, toward our true potential.  That is, in the absence of full knowledge, we must hypothesize by estimating highest probabilities, and thereby blaze paths of progress in directions of preferred outcomes, and adjusting those directions when new data requires.  So while only deductive reasoning allows for programming circuit boards for predictable/repeatable behaviors, only inductive reasonsing allows for humanity to blaze paths of discovery toward reaching its true potential and enjoying the spectacular benefits.  Wikipedia may ned to further consider what may be humanity's true priorities in deciding what is appropriate/relevant content for its articles. Rtdrury (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: So, you want to add a section about the use of inductive reasoning as a personal development skill? If you have a citation to a reliable source that is not a fringe theory perhaps it could be added. Otherwise it is not Wikipedia's place to right great wrongs beyond giving access to reliable encyclopedia knowledge. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 03:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

text: i sympathize with this, but A Treatise on Probability makes some points that add some nuance to your 'we must hypothesize by estimating highest probabilities' that may seem relevant after Covid. But this article already seems much too convoluted without going in to that. Djmarsay (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  inductive reasoning in the context of serving life 

message: In the near future, I intend to revise the article Problem of induction.  I am motivated by the 2005 article with that name by Sloman and Lagnado in the Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning, edited by Holyoak and Morrison.  That article, it seems to me, makes the WP article obsolete in 3 ways.  It eliminates detailed history of induction, already present in this reasoning article.  It distinguishes kinds of inductive methodologies more succinctly than this article.  And it provides examples of current work on the topic, which are not elsewhere available.  I ask editors interested in this topic to read Sloman and Lagnado and respond whether they share my judgment of obsolescence or not—on the talk page of the WP problem article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TBR-qed (talk • contribs) 15:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that  is requesting that editors respond at  where the preceding comment is duplicated. Biogeographist (talk) 00:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is [[Problem of induction]] obsolete? 

message: I have attempted some edits that I hope clarify and are not controversial and do not unduly alter the general 'meaning' of the article. As a mathematician who has worked with scientists (and others) I hope I have not unduly mangled any of the more philosophical content. I would be happy to review my wording.
As it now stands, the example on coin tosses seems a bit weak and maybe distracting, so I would rather omit it. I have also scanned some of the above remarks and agree that such an important subject would merit a more thorough treatment, but then we are in danger of 'original work'.--Djmarsay (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits of 19th Dec 2023

message: Any article about induction that is 'forbidden' to mention and link to abstraction, even as a see-also link alone, is incompetently gatekept. The same is true of analogy and other see-also items that are already here. Please present here any competent counterarguments to this basic logic. If none can be adduced, then those links will be present as see-also alone (let alone competent incorporation into body text). Thanks. Quercus solaris (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should there be a link to "abstraction"? What is the relation of induction to it? In an earlier edit you just said "", which is pretty general. Can you be more specific? - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  So the question that you're asking is, "how is 'any of various methods of reasoning in which broad generalizations or principles are derived from a body of observations' logically related to 'a process wherein general rules and concepts are derived from the usage and classification of specific examples'? First just making sure I understand what the question even is. Thanks. Quercus solaris (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Awaiting response; the question isn't hard to answer, unless one is trying to find some way to make the answer be "no connection" against all odds of sense or logic. Despite the fact that WP:BLUE indisputably covers putting abstraction in the see-also section (given the blueness of the green spans above), I'll cite a reference when I add it there anyway, just to dispose of this rather odd challenge. I'll do that next week, after giving due time here for any possible argument that might be adduced. If anyone can adduce one, it needs to be brought here; otherwise, citing the reference will duly satisfy WP:BRD at the "Cycle" aspect. Quercus solaris (talk) 01:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not ever an "odd challenge" to ask for a citation before material is added to an article—that's how collaborative editing often works, no matter how BLUE one may find the material in question. Remsense诉 01:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  What made this instance odd is two aspects: (1) the degree to which it is like reverting if someone added "crabapple" to the see-also section of "apple", or an article on dogs that contained no mention or link of wolves anywhere (two topics that are indisputably somehow related in the real world but whose Wikipedia articles fail to mention or link each other at all due to inadequate development to date), and someone merely added wolf to see-also section, and it's reverted with very little explanation except "please discuss this before adding" and also "can you explain how they are related?" If that were the normal way of editing Wikipedia, WP:BOLD would not and could not even exist at all, and neither would see-also sections (at all); it is not the WP norm that an edit so basic as that cannot even be made without first asking permission or presenting an argument in favor of it at Talk. The argument in favor of it is too self-evident to require all that; the types of edits that require pre-clearance before they can be made at all are ones more in-depth than that. (2) Citations are usually not given for WP:BLUE see-also items; it is very unusual to see citations added to justify the existence (presence) of a see-also item. [In lieu of any better sentence transition here,] I'm not looking to be difficult about it, but the reason I belabored it here is that I dared not simply make the edit (with reference citation) without first saying anything here to defend it and then see it get reverted again with another inadequate explanation. Thus I made sure to painstakingly (belaboringly) explain here the plan to take the unusual step of citing a reference to justify the existence of a plainly WP:BLUE see-also link, and provide a week's notice for anyone to see if they can come up with a plausible argument for reverting it, before a reversion rather than after. This is to prevent edit warring, per spirit of WP:BRD. Predictably someone might complain that this reply is too long. That's a catch-22. Since my choices are either to belabor the explanation here or to get improperly reverted with inadequate explanation, I chose the former. Quercus solaris (talk) 04:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

text: My question ist simply what you intend to write about abstraction in the article. Just "" is hardly of any use for the reader. By analogy, I wouldn't like to read "" in the article automobile. - One possibility might be to wikilink just the first appropriate occurrence of "generalization", which is (if we believe the lead of that article) more specific than "abstraction". - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 10:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, you're quite right about optimal writing/phrasing, and the "wheels are involved" example is a good one. I agree. In the case of see-also links specifically, the idea is that there can be a rapid de-silo-ing, and tagging of possible future deforking of accidental/unintentional forks of some aspects of topic scope, when two articles should not be entirely isolated from each other (i.e., no mention nor link anywhere) because their semantic and ontologic scope overlaps way too much for that to be OK — and to accomplish that minimum-viable degree even without spending a time sink for rewriting. The idea is to get them connected at all, as a minimum first step, and further optimization can come later. I should have just done that to begin with in this instance — the only reason I didn't is that I try to integrate such links (i.e., "wikilinks that shouldn't *not* be anywhere in this article") into article text rather than see-also when feasible without pouring lots of time into it, for various good reasons. But my lesson in this instance is that if I can't do a more convincing job of the writing rapidly, then my workable options are either (1) to stick to see-also alone or (2) to downshift into something more thorough. Thanks, Quercus solaris (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any article about induction that is 'forbidden' to mention and link to abstraction, even as a see-also alone, is incompetently gatekept