Inductive arguments

[Gamer]

What do you guys think about inductive arguments and their role in the state of the world?

[Meno_]

What do you guys think about inductive arguments and their role in the state of the world?

Gamer, long time no hear, welcome back.

Very generally , the state of the world nowadays, can not be deduced, or even reduced , for such would sink to the lowest common denominator of absurdity.

Therefore , inducing some truth into the real motives based on presupposed goals may be merely one guess bettering another.

That is how closely the discrepancies and contradictions would fare, and the odds or not really that good: perhaps even 50/50, a return to nominalism binary function of mutual exclusion or, either-or.

Politics is now a guessing game, and inductively speaking the procedure is to look for inducements posed of plain and simple propaganda, one way or another.

Hiding behind a central facade of an worn out badge, still carries weight with under informed or plain uninformed regional constituents.


Therefore politiical reality could be reduced, but now , politocal science is arguably inductive, and it is tediously hyperbolic to fill in missong logical variables to make it appear as logically consistent and reductionist.

At the same time, this logical contradiction. Is dismissed by a current cliche of 'political correctness'.

That is, to dig deeper then populism appears to serve a transcendence between inductive and deductive logic, is to find a whitewashed dynamic of denial and fabrication.

[surreptitious75]

I do not think that induction is a very reliabe metric outside of science
Because political arguments tend to be ideological and tribal by nature

Were politics a more clinical discipline like science then induction may be more valid
But unlike science it is more about subjective interpretation than about anything else

[Meno_]

I do not think that induction is a very reliabe metric outside of science
Because political arguments tend to be ideological and tribal by nature

Were politics a more clinical discipline like science then induction may be more valid
But unlike science it is more about subjective interpretation than about anything else

Surreptitious,

Did You notice that after You commented I edited my writing previous to Yours? I tried to induce to You, the idea that political reasoning may be too broad a word, within which ito connect with what You said postscriptivelly. That You did not, and could have, kind of processess Your thinking into denying, a relevance
a priori.

Denying is proof, (whatever the reason of the method) of negating inductive logic. You were instead deducting into and from an exclusion of induction, and maintaining, that it is not appropriate to hold politics to the level of science. Your method claimed the invalidity of.political science along the very logic that was inappropriate to it.

Now I am not saying that your motive was relevant. here, but , that is not the goal with which You should or even need to connect with.

The idea of connecting intentions with goals is.precisely to transcend immediate concerns . It is meant o show relevance as to how to raise.above your view of the appropriateness of using scientific methodology to politics.

Yet , contrarily, you are using deductive logic to prove the illogic of induction to politics.

Do You see the contradiction inherent in political argumentation as proof of what is considered as as separate source of logical structure?

The patent and latent arguments covering dynamics of proof, of convincing others that the intentional goals are somehow different then the ones which gather certainty in a procedural developing. and changing contextual derivation?

That is what I am trying to gett at.


Here is a current conclusion by unambiguous on the current Wittgenstein forum, as it bears on this current topic:

"Part of the problem with many interpretations o' On Certainty'is that people fail to take (linguistic and prelinguistic beliefs) into account how both kinds of beliefs can be hinges. This will be explained in more detail later."

Do You see the congruence?

[promethean75]

I do not think that induction is a very reliabe metric outside of science
Because political arguments tend to be ideological and tribal by nature

Were politics a more clinical discipline like science then induction may be more valid
But unlike science it is more about subjective interpretation than about anything else

yes but what if we made a science out of the study of this very phenomena; are there consistencies and regularities in the structures that generate these ideological veltunshangs (i like to spell it like it sounds if you don't mind). what if there was soooo much predictability and uniformity within the relationship between paradigm and subjectivity that we could almost point to a dude and say 'yup, he's gonna become a liberal' with the same certainty we have when we say 'that bachelor isn't married'. am i too optimistic to think sociology could become a real science... that we might be able to produce a comte/marx/skinner hybrid if we collect samples of their dna and use all that stuff they got at area 51 to make him?

[surreptitious75]

You can definitely apply rigour to it and I have absolutely no problem with that at all but it would never be equal to the rigour of science
Because what determines someones politics is subjective and very often is conditional upon their personal philosophy and life experience
Politics is about how one sees the world from their own individual perspective where as science is about the objective study of the world

[surreptitious75]

And even though politics and sociology and psychology are genuine disciplines within their own right they
are still not as rigorous as mathematics and the hard sciences of physics and chemistry and biology are

The study of any particular aspect of human thought or behaviour such as politics is always going to
be problematic because of the individuality and subjectivity and capriciousness of the human mind

Also using the mind in order to study the politics of minds is a problem with regard to objectivity
Rigour is a wonderful tool but it cannot always be applied with the necessary degree of freedom

[Gamer]

Clearly, to me, there is a continuum of strength or "cogency" in an inductive argument.

Aside from science, I find the US court system to generally be a strong inductive environment, there are exceptions, plus all inductive arguments contain biases and assumptions; yet some inductive arguments are stronger than others, and legal environments unfold a bit more cogently than, say, bickering at the local pub.

With regard to how this fact of nature (inductive argumentation) relates to the state of the world (a very general question, I realize) my hope is that you could tell me a bit more about 1) efficient and realistic ways in which we can influence inductive arguments to be stronger/cogent within the general population and in the news, and 2) if there's anything to be gained from doing this in politics, social issues, etc.

[Gamer]

Gamer, long time no hear, welcome back.

yes Meno_ it's been a minute. hope you're all good around here