Prof. Bonevac your ability to reduce ideas to simple clear and accurate forms is amazing. People may no longer believe that the universe can be understood by the relationships of whole numbers but yet some hold on to the idea that the universe can be understood in terms of "elegant" or "beautiful" theories. They cling so much to that ideal that they get lost in the math. ;-)
Thank you sir! Your videos make it worthwhile having an internet connexion. I noticed you treated abduction as, effectively, a special case of induction. That's absolutely fine, but having in my head linked abduction with the "American Leibniz" (no less than your Charles Sanders Price), I would have jumped on the opportunity to mention Peirce in reference to abduction. Also, on your beloved cat featuring in the video: children and animals are the most innocent beings on this planet. And how much harm we do to them, and more widely to the natural environment. Many thanks once again!
Like these lectures. I have always been told to see deduction and induction as broadly the relationship between theory and data. In deduction we deduce certain predictions from theory which infer things we can test from data like Einstein and hard scientists do. Induction is more about looking at actual data and inferring a theory to explain them as Darwin did. I think this helps and is broadly what this great lecture is suggesting. Key is to make sure the data and theory align.
Thank you Professor for your marvelous essays and lectures. I am currently "attending" the 2013 Ideas of the 20th C lectures. It's incredible. I plant to sit in on the 2015 and 2017 lectures you delivered for the same class. You are such a knowledgeable and dynamic speaker, I love listening.
So swans are all white if and only if you are outside Australia else in Australia, Sawans can be either white or black got you, now let me see if I can code this in a programme
The example of the atomic model is a bad one. The premise was that atomic particles are classical particles with mass and charge, along with a weird stability assumption, _deductively_ implies the model. Turns out they weren't classical particles, and the model is wrong. There were no analogies involved.
The [decision to make the premise you mentioned] relies on induction, and the induction could certainly be based on the analogy Daniel described. Without such induction, which model among the possible models should you develop and test against observation? There are (obviously) infinitely many models which satisfy the observational constraints (at any given time). Induction ("guessing") is needed to determine which models out of the infinitely many possible models we should develop and test against observation, unless we have the "super-power" of developing and testing [all] possible models within realistic constraints (which is patently impossible). Note that "model" here refers to [scientific model] or [scientific theory], not the model as in model theory.
Very helpful.
Namaste from India
Always such great videos.
Prof. Bonevac your ability to reduce ideas to simple clear and accurate forms is amazing.
People may no longer believe that the universe can be understood by the relationships of whole numbers but yet some hold on to the idea that the universe can be understood in terms of "elegant" or "beautiful" theories. They cling so much to that ideal that they get lost in the math. ;-)
Thank you prof I'm still applying most this in research you're a great teacher you make philosophy attractive and simple to understand
Great video! Learned so much. Thank you. Also through induction Emmett is horrible. Therefore all cats are horrible.
😀
Thank you sir! Your videos make it worthwhile having an internet connexion. I noticed you treated abduction as, effectively, a special case of induction. That's absolutely fine, but having in my head linked abduction with the "American Leibniz" (no less than your Charles Sanders Price), I would have jumped on the opportunity to mention Peirce in reference to abduction. Also, on your beloved cat featuring in the video: children and animals are the most innocent beings on this planet. And how much harm we do to them, and more widely to the natural environment. Many thanks once again!
Like these lectures. I have always been told to see deduction and induction as broadly the relationship between theory and data. In deduction we deduce certain predictions from theory which infer things we can test from data like Einstein and hard scientists do. Induction is more about looking at actual data and inferring a theory to explain them as Darwin did. I think this helps and is broadly what this great lecture is suggesting. Key is to make sure the data and theory align.
Thank you Professor for your marvelous essays and lectures. I am currently "attending" the 2013 Ideas of the 20th C lectures. It's incredible. I plant to sit in on the 2015 and 2017 lectures you delivered for the same class. You are such a knowledgeable and dynamic speaker, I love listening.
Wonderful! Thanks for the kind words.
This is a basis for all philosophy.
But if something is not-rational is it necessarily rational or could it be not not-rational and not irrational namely something else?
2:49 Isn't indirect proof something different? This should be proof by contadiction, as hinted by 3:02. Great video as always otherwise!
Proof by contradiction is a form of an indirect proof.
@@aliebrahimshaffiee Oh, sorry, my bad. I've got lost in translation 😅 Thank you for explanation.
@@maidnuu your very welcome
So swans are all white if and only if you are outside Australia
else
in Australia, Sawans can be either white or black
got you, now let me see if I can code this in a programme
We are bad at this
The example of the atomic model is a bad one. The premise was that atomic particles are classical particles with mass and charge, along with a weird stability assumption, _deductively_ implies the model. Turns out they weren't classical particles, and the model is wrong. There were no analogies involved.
The [decision to make the premise you mentioned] relies on induction, and the induction could certainly be based on the analogy Daniel described. Without such induction, which model among the possible models should you develop and test against observation? There are (obviously) infinitely many models which satisfy the observational constraints (at any given time).
Induction ("guessing") is needed to determine which models out of the infinitely many possible models we should develop and test against observation, unless we have the "super-power" of developing and testing [all] possible models within realistic constraints (which is patently impossible).
Note that "model" here refers to [scientific model] or [scientific theory], not the model as in model theory.