Thread: Problem of Induction

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

Why can we assume this? Can't we only assume it's been true every time we've tested it? This being in a very small fraction of time (even if considering the whole lifespan of humanity) could we really ignore that the "laws" we've made for the physical processes of nature could really be trying to describe things that are dynamical, even if so slowly that in a life time they are very accurate and useful?


That "very occasionally" may very well be an indication that our whole idea of this process we observe is wrong and that a better idea should be sought out. If your talking about just the observation itself being usually true, what if it depends on a dynamical process that up till now has been slow and unnoticeable but can start to accelerate or change more abruptly? You couldn't be sure that the deviation from that usual observation will always stay rare.

I don't really think I addressed the problem of induction specifically yet, more so just the goal of science.

I think it is only logical that if something if observed to happen an exact way 10 million times, like the force of gravity on an object, It would make sense to form laws and assume they will behave in a certain way to progress in mathematics, science, and many other outlets of understanding the core foundation of physics. Just as it would make sense that if a cure for a disease has worked 10 million times, it would be smart to administer it again.

Now to the problem. Can we assume that this is objectively sound and is not subject to change, that we have arrived at an immutable and perfect law. What would be our basis, if there is one?
Our basis is a large set trials that have occurred with a substantial amount of variances that would suggest that this law hold true. it happened to a bowling ball, to a airplane, gravity would seem to be a justified law.

It seems as though the answer to this problem of induction is that we just need to progress with observable laws and hope they hold consistently to a variety of tests that we will put them through. When variability, if any, happens then we simply adjust and move on. Therefore, sure, maybe there isn't a 100% or even a 1% chance that gravity is immutable and perfectly understood knowledge because the probability of all this being chance or influenced by some lurking variable still persists, but what is certain is that if we can't assume consistency in phenomena, we wouldn't have progressed to where we are now.

Originally Posted by Dreams4free

but what is certain is that if we can't assume consistency in phenomena, we wouldn't have progressed to where we are now.

I guess I just think "assume" is a strong word. We work off of what we can, and it has worked, but how can we "assume" things will forever stay constant?