Inductive reasoning doesn’t lead to any results, ever.
No one has ever used it.
The theory they have is a mistake.
This cannot be demonstrated in the way you request. It can only be argued. e.g. by beginning with the question: what precisely does induction say to do? (which has never been successfully answered.)
have people done stuff similar to induction, and did it work OK? well that depends on philosophical understanding of what is and isn’t similar to something that doesn’t make sense. i’m not very inclined to start calling any coherent things similar to any incoherent ones.
Many Popperian insights are of this type: they are philosophical ideas.
So far the examples you have given of the supposed benefits of Critical Rationalism have been achievements of people who can only be loosely associated with Critical Rationalism
What are you talking about? I don’t think you know much about the philosophies of the people I listed. They aren’t all just loosely associated.
So what if nobody has ever used induction? I’m convinced that Popper is wrong, but without any evidence that following his epistemology produces improved results, I don’t see why I should be interested in the possibility that he’s right. Even supposing induction is merely an approximation of how we really gain knowledge, it’s a computable approximation which produces results that are at least as viable, so there’s no reason why it not being the “real” method of knowledge production should matter, for AI or for humans.
What are you talking about? I don’t think you know much about the philosophies of the people I listed. They aren’t all just loosely associated.
Then explain specifically what each of them have achieved that could not have been achieved equally well had they not been Critical Rationalists, and why these achievements are due to Critical Rationalism. Or hell, explain what any of them have achieved that’s unambiguously due to critical rationalism.
Even supposing induction is merely an approximation
Popper says it’s not.
Does that matter to you?
Then explain specifically what each of them have achieved that could not have been achieved equally well had they not been Critical Rationalists, and why these achievements are due to Critical Rationalism. Or hell, explain what any of them have achieved that’s unambiguously due to critical rationalism.
You are challenging me to explain things to you which you could learn about on your own if you wanted. You want me to answer questions you chose not to research. That is OK, but...
Before that you were dismissive. So I’m not sure if I want to help answer your questions about scientists. Are you a person with intellectual integrity who is worth talking to? Help me decide. You made a statement about the people I had listed, without knowing much about the people I had listed, and in particular without knowing if they all only have a loose association with CR or not. You falsely asserted they did all have a loose association only. You were mistaken to speak from ignorance about scientists—assuming I was wrong without even asking—and now you would like to learn better and change your mind. Is that correct?
Note for example that Deutsch has published two books advocating Popperian philosophy and talking extensively about Popper. That isn’t a loose association. Even wikipedia level knowledge of these people would be sufficient not to make the mistake you did. You had less than that level of knowledge and posted anyway. Do you want to apologize, retract your statements, or anything? Or do you want to get mad at me now? I want to test your reaction.
I don’t see why it should, unless you can demonstrate that it leads to different results. This is what I expect in order to have an interest in this discussion, please provide it if you want me to continue to participate.
You are challenging me to explain things to you which you could learn about on your own if you wanted. You want me to answer questions you chose not to research. That is OK, but...
Why should I commit to reading a large amount of material without an indication that it contains useful ideas? That’s an opportunity cost, time I could be dedicating to countless other things including any other philosophy. You yourself haven’t committed the time to reading the Sequences, and have demonstrated basic level misunderstandings of the positions we hold here; you’re applying a double standard in your expectations.
I am giving you ample opportunity to convince me that doing this research is worth my time, and am becoming less and less patient as you fail to provide anything I consider a meaningful incentive.
Inductive reasoning doesn’t lead to any results, ever.
No one has ever used it.
This is so empirically false that I don’t know how to approach it. Do you actually think that when people are saying that they are using induction they really aren’t? Note that this isn’t the same claim that people shouldn’t be using induction or that their induction is unjustified. But claiming they are not using it is just wrong unless you are using some very non-standard terminology under which one could say things like “No one has ever used homeopathy.” This seems like an abuse of language.
Inductive reasoning doesn’t lead to any results, ever.
No one has ever used it.
The theory they have is a mistake.
This cannot be demonstrated in the way you request. It can only be argued. e.g. by beginning with the question: what precisely does induction say to do? (which has never been successfully answered.)
have people done stuff similar to induction, and did it work OK? well that depends on philosophical understanding of what is and isn’t similar to something that doesn’t make sense. i’m not very inclined to start calling any coherent things similar to any incoherent ones.
Many Popperian insights are of this type: they are philosophical ideas.
What are you talking about? I don’t think you know much about the philosophies of the people I listed. They aren’t all just loosely associated.
This doesn’t address my requests at all.
So what if nobody has ever used induction? I’m convinced that Popper is wrong, but without any evidence that following his epistemology produces improved results, I don’t see why I should be interested in the possibility that he’s right. Even supposing induction is merely an approximation of how we really gain knowledge, it’s a computable approximation which produces results that are at least as viable, so there’s no reason why it not being the “real” method of knowledge production should matter, for AI or for humans.
Then explain specifically what each of them have achieved that could not have been achieved equally well had they not been Critical Rationalists, and why these achievements are due to Critical Rationalism. Or hell, explain what any of them have achieved that’s unambiguously due to critical rationalism.
Popper says it’s not.
Does that matter to you?
You are challenging me to explain things to you which you could learn about on your own if you wanted. You want me to answer questions you chose not to research. That is OK, but...
Before that you were dismissive. So I’m not sure if I want to help answer your questions about scientists. Are you a person with intellectual integrity who is worth talking to? Help me decide. You made a statement about the people I had listed, without knowing much about the people I had listed, and in particular without knowing if they all only have a loose association with CR or not. You falsely asserted they did all have a loose association only. You were mistaken to speak from ignorance about scientists—assuming I was wrong without even asking—and now you would like to learn better and change your mind. Is that correct?
Note for example that Deutsch has published two books advocating Popperian philosophy and talking extensively about Popper. That isn’t a loose association. Even wikipedia level knowledge of these people would be sufficient not to make the mistake you did. You had less than that level of knowledge and posted anyway. Do you want to apologize, retract your statements, or anything? Or do you want to get mad at me now? I want to test your reaction.
I don’t see why it should, unless you can demonstrate that it leads to different results. This is what I expect in order to have an interest in this discussion, please provide it if you want me to continue to participate.
Why should I commit to reading a large amount of material without an indication that it contains useful ideas? That’s an opportunity cost, time I could be dedicating to countless other things including any other philosophy. You yourself haven’t committed the time to reading the Sequences, and have demonstrated basic level misunderstandings of the positions we hold here; you’re applying a double standard in your expectations.
I am giving you ample opportunity to convince me that doing this research is worth my time, and am becoming less and less patient as you fail to provide anything I consider a meaningful incentive.
Go read Jaynes’ defense of Laplace’s rule of succession (which is an example of inductive reasoning) in Chapter 18.
This is so empirically false that I don’t know how to approach it. Do you actually think that when people are saying that they are using induction they really aren’t? Note that this isn’t the same claim that people shouldn’t be using induction or that their induction is unjustified. But claiming they are not using it is just wrong unless you are using some very non-standard terminology under which one could say things like “No one has ever used homeopathy.” This seems like an abuse of language.
Post the method of induction, step by step, in sufficient detail that a reasonable person could do it without having to ask any questions.
When you fail—in particular by having large unspecified parts—it will be because you are wrong about the issue in question.
When you respond to this failure by making ad hoc additions that still don’t provide followable instructions, then I will stop talking to you.
OK, go ahead.
Please reread my statement. The issue I was arguing with is not whether or not induction is justified. It was whether or not people are using it.