Doug,
I sent this response at 9.39. did you not get it. I think the server throws away one in five of my messages, just for fun.
From: Nicholas Thompson [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 9:39 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: RE: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way
Of course. Sorry.
Inductive reasoning consists of inferring general principles or rules from specific facts.
Nick
From: [hidden email] [hidden email] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 9:18 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way
I'll be happy, perhaps even thrilled to share my thoughts on induction, Nick. First, however, we need to narrow the question down to be a bit more specific. The word induction has many applications and connotations. Here are a few:
In biology and chemistry:
§ Inductive effect is the redistribution of electron density through molecular sigma bonds
§
§ Induction period - the time interval between the initial cause and the appearance of the first measurable effect
§
§ Regulation of gene expression, a process in which a molecule (e.g. a drug) induces (i.e. initiates or enhances) or inhibits the expression of an enzyme
§
§ Induction (birth), induction of childbirth
§
§ Asymmetric induction is the formation of one specific stereoisomer in the presence of a nearby chiral center
§
§ Inductive reasoning aptitude, an aptitude or personality characteristic
§
§
§ Regulation of gene expression
§
§
§ Enzyme induction and inhibition
§
In mathematics:
§ Mathematical induction, a method of proof in the field of mathematics
§ Strong induction, or Complete induction, a variant of mathematical induction
§ Transfinite induction, a kind of mathematical induction
§ Epsilon-induction, a kind of transfinite induction
§ Structural induction, a generalization of mathematical induction
§ Statistical induction, also known as statistical inference.
§ induced representation, in representation theory: an operation for obtaining a representation of an object from one of its subobjects.
§ Parabolic induction: a method of constructing group representations of a reductive group from representations of its parabolic subgroups.
In philosophy, logic, and computer science:
§ Inductive reasoning, a form of reasoning often confused with scientific reasoning
§ Backward induction in game theory and economics
§ Concept learning is the induction of a concept (category) from observations
In physics:
§ Electromagnetic induction in physics and engineering
§ Induction heating, the process of heating an electrically conducting object
§ Induction cooker, which uses induction heating for cooking.
§ Electrostatic induction in physics
§ Forced induction, with combustion engines, is the use of a gas compressor added to the air intake
So, you could perhaps pick which application of induction you are interested in, and I will be, as I said, just tickled pink to expound on it.
--Doug
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
I, too, can make an argument for the validity of induction; However, that's
not the point.
I wanted to hear Doug;s
Nick
-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of Russell Standish
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 11:22 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way
When we put it in a computer, it works. My email spam filter
(spamassassin) uses a machine induction technique called Bayesian networks.
It is remarkably effective at keeping spam out, and learning, in the
process, what I consider to be spam.
In order to persuade me that induction is invalid, you would need to explain
why the above is not an example of induction. I have read David Deutsch's
books where takes a swinging hammer to induction. I found these to be less
than convincing. Moreover, the examples he gives of induction (and of
induction failing) seem very similar to the spamassasin example above (which
also fails, from time-to-time, as the occasional spam gets through). I have
been on the lists Fabric of Reality and Beginning of Infinity, until I got
kicked off for the suspected crime of being a Bayesian epistemologist, where
such discussions have taken place, with the anti-induction crowd providing
little substance other than to suggest read tomes and tomes of Popper, which
I'm unlikely to do without a compelling reason. Surely, if induction is so
incoherent, it can be demolished effectively in 100 words or less.
BTW - I do agree with Deutsch that conjecture and refutation is a superior
way of gaining knowledge, than what I would call induction. But it seems
that to say induction doesn't exist or doesn't work is going too far.
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 10:42:15PM -0600, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |