Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    No argument can justify projecting observed patterns onto... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    No argument can justify projecting observed patterns onto unobserved cases (the problem of induction).

    Skepticism
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wittgenstein's rule-following considerations show that no finite set of observations logically determines a unique projectable pattern (PI §201).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Goodman's 'grue' paradox demonstrates that infinitely many mutually incompatible predicates are equally consistent with any finite body of evidence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If logic alone cannot select which regularities to project, no argument can provide non-circular justification for any particular inductive projection.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hume established that the Uniformity of Nature principle is itself only knowable through induction, making all deductive reconstructions beg the question.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Reichenbach's pragmatic vindication and Strawson's ordinary-language dissolution both concede that induction cannot be justified in the traditional sense, only normalized.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Any justification for inductive reasoning must appeal to either an inductive argument or a deductive argument.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Appealing to an inductive argument to justify induction would be unacceptably circular.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A deductive argument justifying induction would have to show that unobserved instances will resemble observed ones.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Modality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    A deductive argument justifying induction would have to show that unobserved ins...Any justification for inductive reasoning must appeal to either an inductive arg...Appealing to an inductive argument to justify induction would be unacceptably ci...Goodman's 'grue' paradox demonstrates that infinitely many mutually incompatible...
    +6 moreShow less
    Hume established that the Uniformity of Nature principle is itself only knowable...If logic alone cannot select which regularities to project, no argument can prov...Reichenbach's pragmatic vindication and Strawson's ordinary-language dissolution...The claim that unobserved instances resemble observed ones is not a necessary tr...What is not a necessary truth cannot be demonstrated by any valid deductive argu...Wittgenstein's rule-following considerations show that no finite set of observat...

    Similar

    A deductive argument justifying induction would have to show that unob...87%Any induction establishes a conclusion that outstrips the available da...80%Single-case induction becomes one means among others for establishing ...79%The argument from analogy is an induction from a single instance, name...78%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: formal-epistemology
    View source passageHide passage
    A lot of our reasoning seems to involve projecting observed patterns onto unobserved instances. For example, suppose I don’t know whether the coin I’m holding is biased or fair. If I flip it 9 times and it lands tails every time, I’ll expect the 10th toss to come up tails too. What justifies this kind of reasoning? Hume famously argued that nothing can justify it. In modern form, Hume’s challenge is essentially this: a justification for such reasoning must appeal to either an inductive argument
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit