In addition, the future always resembles the past in some respects and not others, so saying the future resembles the past is irrelevant to creating and assessing ideas.
But not all inductivists believe in a version of inductivism that supposedly generates theories or scientific knowledge.
Its also possible to accept a version of induction that deals purely with the probabilities of future observations based on past observations.
(Here, both claims are popular… but not equivalent It is possible to reject the idea that Solomonoff inductors are actually generating theories, whilst accepting a probabilistic basis for induction in the second sense. As I keep pointing out, inductors of that kind can be shown to exist by construction).
in some respects and not others
You could have credited inductivists with having detailed ideas about the distinction.
“Bacon’s method is an example of the application of inductive reasoning. However, Bacon’s method of induction is much more complex than the essential inductive process of making generalizations from observations. Bacon’s method begins with description of the requirements for making the careful, systematic observations necessary to produce quality facts. He then proceeds to use induction, the ability to generalize from a set of facts to one or more axioms. ” WP.
But what is the point? Not many people are Baconians nowadays.
What is the version of inductivism that generates no theories or scientific knowledge and what does it accomplish?
There are many kinds of knowledge and learning that are useful but fall short of scientific knowledge. It is useful to any organism to learn from experience, and many can, even simple ones. There are many useful things learning algorithms can do. My cellphone has predictive text, which is based on learning: yours probably does too.
But not all inductivists believe in a version of inductivism that supposedly generates theories or scientific knowledge.
Its also possible to accept a version of induction that deals purely with the probabilities of future observations based on past observations.
(Here, both claims are popular… but not equivalent It is possible to reject the idea that Solomonoff inductors are actually generating theories, whilst accepting a probabilistic basis for induction in the second sense. As I keep pointing out, inductors of that kind can be shown to exist by construction).
You could have credited inductivists with having detailed ideas about the distinction.
That version of inductivism isn’t in Li and Vitanyi who haven’t even stated the problem described by critics of inductivism. Where is it?
“Bacon’s method is an example of the application of inductive reasoning. However, Bacon’s method of induction is much more complex than the essential inductive process of making generalizations from observations. Bacon’s method begins with description of the requirements for making the careful, systematic observations necessary to produce quality facts. He then proceeds to use induction, the ability to generalize from a set of facts to one or more axioms. ” WP.
But what is the point? Not many people are Baconians nowadays.
You said earlier:
What is the version of inductivism that generates no theories or scientific knowledge and what does it accomplish?
There are many kinds of knowledge and learning that are useful but fall short of scientific knowledge. It is useful to any organism to learn from experience, and many can, even simple ones. There are many useful things learning algorithms can do. My cellphone has predictive text, which is based on learning: yours probably does too.