Interpreter and Interpretant • Selection 9.1
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2025/01/27/interpreter-and-interpretant-selection-9-a/

Transfer —

Let's examine how the transfer of knowledge through the analogy of experience works in the case of Dewey's “Sign of Rain” example.

For concreteness, consider a fragment K_pres of the reasoner's knowledge base which is logically equivalent to a conjunction of two rules.

• K_pres ⇔ (B ⇒ A) ∧ (B ⇒ D).

K_pres may be thought of as a piece of knowledge or item of information allowing for the possibility of certain conditions, expressed in the form of a logical constraint on the present universe of discourse.

It is convenient to have the option of expressing all logical statements in terms of their models, that is, in terms of the primitive circumstances or elements of experience over which they hold true.

• Let E_past be the chosen set of experiences, or the circumstances in mind under “past experience”.

• Let E_poss be the collective set of experiences, or the prospective total of possible circumstances.

• Let E_pres be the current experience, or the circumstances immediately present to the reasoner.

If we think of the knowledge base K_pres as referring to the “regime of experience” over which it is valid, then the sets of models involved in the analogy may be ordered according to the relationships of set inclusion or logical implication existing among them.

#Peirce #Logic #Semiotics #Semiosis #SignRelations
#JohnDewey #Interpreter #Interpretant #Pragmatism
#Abduction #Deduction #Induction #Analogy #Inquiry

Why do we say that induction is stronger than deduction?

It depends, because induction is stronger than deduction in several ways.

Formal strength lies in part in what sort of problem the method can work on. Induction can work on stuff that deduction can't even begin to work on.

Strength of output lies in how well the outcomes tolerate contradiction. An inductive conclusion can withstand quite a bit of contradiction. Deductive outcomes cannot withstand any contradiction at all.

These two are related, though.
An inductive outcome can be formed from input that contains contradictions. And when the outcome encounters a contradiction, this is simply added to the Body of Evidence, with all the other contradictions that in the end didn't manage to prevent conclusion.

Of course, given enough such evidence, a better outcome or set of outcomes can be produced.

But with deduction, if you hit even a single contradiction, your entire effort was wasted - the conclusion is now worthless.

This strength of induction was predicted already by Hume, who described what we now call inductive reasoning as:

• infallible in its operations
• discovers itself at the first appearance of life and thought
• independent of all the laboured deductions of the understanding

@philosophy #deduction #induction

Reminder: If you are a scientist, and you're putting together deductive arguments on a work thing, change your job.

Deduction is not fit for use with reality.

At all.

Epistemic self-defense: Unfortunate truths 1/?

So you want to make sure you believe the right things for the right reasons, avoiding falsehoods.

That's great.

Unfortunately, you'll find mostly bad advice about how to go about it.

Here are the worst stumbling blocks:

1) Deductive logic.
Deductive logic is IMMENSELY OVERRATED. It's actually pretty useless for finding truth, unless by "truth" you mean whatever you *want* to be true. This is easy to show.

1a) Deduction is based on assumptions. If you were able to do deduction in a controlled way (you're not) you could potentially (not actually) find out if your assumptions are correct by checking if the conclusions are correct. The problem is that deduction is so easy and simple, that your brain already has a well-rehearsed and wholly subconscious method for reverse-engineering assumptions so that they lead to whatever conclusion you want to be true. And when you conclude the thing you want to be true, you're going to get a splash of dopamine, and you're going to stop looking for alternatives. That's just how the brain works.
1b) You cannot discipline your way out of that, and even if you could, deduction is still a very bad tool to use in a non-axiomatic system. With no rock-bottom to build from (i.e. no made-up axioms that define a made-up system you want to explore) it is provably impossible to build any sort of complete proof. No matter what you do, you will still have premises that are just brute assertions - trying to question them will lead to infinite regression at best, circularity at worst.

...
That's why logicians tend to regard logic as games. Different games have different rules, and entail different thing. This is fine and good, but it hasn't got anything to do with reality.
...

[This is planned to be a thread, but I will leave this one by itself for a while, in case anyone has any questions.]

Please do @ me if you do.

Mes cartes sont terminées (enfin, une première version de celles-ci). Elle sont disponibles en téléchargement pour ceux et celles qui voudraient les essayer (CC BY-NC 4.0). Avec les règles du jeu détaillées en PDF : https://pycomtois.com/les-loups-garous-de-saint-adelphes-du-lac/

The game is on!

Join our Kickstarter now:
http://www.tinyurl.com/sherlock-kickstarter

“To a great mind, nothing is little.”

Join our Kickstarter now:
https://www.tinyurl.com/sherlock-kickstarter

#ShareYourWork Summary of my review of Catarina Dutilh Novaes’ (CDN) 2020 book, The Dialogical Roots of Deduction. In my view, the book is critical to understanding the role, if any, of #deduction and the #syllogism in #LegalReasoning and #LegalArgumentation. As the book’s subtitle suggests, it explores the #history, #CognitiveScience, and #philosophy of deduction. TL;dr in next entry of thread, links at the end. #ShareYouWork 1/10
#defeasible #DefeasibleArgument #Defeasibility

#Survey of #Abduction, #Deduction, #Induction, #Analogy, #Inquiry

• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/12/16/survey-of-abduction-deduction-induction-analogy-inquiry-2/

This is a Survey of blog and wiki posts on three elementary forms of #inference, as recognized by a logical tradition extending from #Aristotle through Charles S. #Peirce. Particular attention is paid to the way these inferential rudiments combine to form the more complex patterns of analogy and inquiry.