“John is a man. All men are mortal. Therefore, John is mortal.” This argument from two premises to the conclusion is a *deductive* argument. The conclusion logically follows from the premises; equivalently, it is logically impossible for the conclusion not to be true *if* the premises are true. Mathematics is the primary domain of deductive argument, but our everyday lives and scientific lives are filled mostly with another kind of argument.

Not all arguments are deductive, and ‘inductive’ is the adjective labeling any non-deductive argument. Induction is the kind of argument in which we typically engage.

“John is a man. Most men die before their 100th birthday. Therefore John will die before his 100th birthday.” The conclusion of *this* argument can, in principle, be false while the premises are true; the premises do not logically entail the conclusion that John will die before his 100th birthday. It nevertheless is a pretty good argument.

It is through inductive arguments that we learn about our world. Any time a claim about infinitely many things is made on the evidence of only finitely many things, this is induction; e.g., when you draw a best-fit line through data points, your line consists of infinitely many points, and thus infinitely many claims. Generalizations are kinds of induction. Even more generally, any time a claim is made about more than what is given in the evidence itself, one is engaging in induction. It is with induction that courtrooms and juries grapple. When simpler hypotheses are favored, or when hypotheses that postulate unnecessary entities are disfavored (Occam’s Razor), this is induction. When medical doctors diagnose, they are doing induction. Most learning consists of induction: seeing a few examples of some rule and eventually catching on. Children engage in induction when they learn the particular grammatical rules of their language, or when they learn to believe that objects going out of sight do not go out of existence. When rats or pigeons learn, they are acting inductively. On the basis of retinal information, the visual system generates a percept of its guess about what is in the world in front of the observer, despite the fact that there are always infinitely many ways the world could be that would lead to the same retinal information—the visual system thus engages in induction. If ten bass are pulled from a lake which is known to contain at most two kinds of fish—bass and carp—it is induction when one thinks the next one pulled will be a bass, or that the probability that the next will be a bass is more than 1/2.

Probabilistic conclusions are still inductive conclusions when the premises do not logically entail them, and there is nothing about having fished ten or one million bass that logically entails that a bass is more probable on the next fishing, much less some specific probability that the next will be a bass. It is entirely possible, for example, that the probability of a bass is now *decreased*—“it is about time for a carp.”

Although we carry out induction all the time, and although all our knowledge of the world depends crucially on it, there are severe problems in our understanding of it.

What we would *like* to have is a theory that can do the following: The theory would take as input (i) a set of hypotheses and (ii) all the evidence known concerning those hypotheses. The theory would then assign each hypothesis a probability value quantifying the degree of confidence one logically ought to have in the hypothesis, given all the evidence. This theory would interpret probabilities as logical probabilities (from Carnap) and might be called a theory of logical induction, or a theory of logical probability. (Logical probability can be distinguished from other interpretations of probability. For example, the subjective interpretation interprets the probability as how confident a person actually is in the hypothesis, as opposed to how confident the person ought to be. In the *frequency* interpretation, a probability is interpreted roughly as the relative frequency at which the hypothesis has been realized in the past.)

Such a theory would tell us the proper method in which to proceed with our inductions, i.e., it would tell us the proper “inductive method.” [An inductive method is a way by which evidence is utilized to determine a posteriori beliefs in the hypotheses. Intuitively, an inductive method is a box with evidence and hypotheses as input, and a posteriori beliefs in the hypotheses as output.]

When we fish ten bass from the lake, we could use the theory to tell us exactly how confident we should be in the next fish being a bass. The theory could be used to tell us whether and how much we should be more confident in simpler hypotheses. And when presented with data points, the theory would tell us which curve ought to be interpolated through the data.

Notice that the kind of theory we would like to have is a theory about what we ought to do in certain circumstances, namely inductive circumstances. It is a prescriptive theory we are looking for. In this way it is actually a lot like theories in ethics, which attempt to justify why one ought or ought not do some act.

Now here is the problem: No one has yet been able to develop a successful such theory!

Given a set of hypotheses and all the known evidence, it sure seems as if there is a single right way to inductively proceed. For example, if all your data lie perfectly along a line—and that is all the evidence you have to go on—it seems intuitively obvious that you should draw a line through the data, rather than, say, some curvy polynomial passing through each point. And after seeing a million bass in the lake—and assuming these observations are all you have to help you—it has just got to be right to start betting on bass, not carp.

Believe it or not, however, we are still not able to defend, or justify, why one really ought to inductively behave in those fashions, as rational as they seem. Instead, there are multiple inductive methods that seem to be just as good as one another, in terms of justification. (Hume is the philosopher who made this problem most apparent.)

The hypothesis set and evidence need to be input into some inductive method in order to obtain beliefs in light of the evidence. But the inductive method is, to this day, left variable. Different people can pick different inductive methods without violating any mathematical laws, and so come to believe different things even though they have the same evidence before them.

But do we not use inductive methods in science, and do we not have justifications for them? Surely we are not picking inductive methods willy nilly!

In order to defend inductive methods as we actually use them today, we make extra assumptions, assumptions going beyond the data at hand.

For example, we sometimes simply assume that lines are more a priori probable than parabolas (i.e., more probable before any evidence exists), and this helps us conclude that a line through the data should be given greater confidence than the other curves. And for fishing at the lake, we sometimes make an a priori assumption that, if we pull n fish from the lake, the probability of getting n bass and no carp is the same as the probability of getting n-1 bass and one carp, which is the same as the probability of getting n-2 bass and two carp, and so on; this assumption makes it possible to begin to favor bass as more and more bass, and no carp, are pulled from the lake.

Making different a priori assumptions would, in each case, lead to different inductive methods, i.e., lead to different ways of assigning inductive confidence values, or logical probabilities, to the hypotheses.

But what justifies our making these a priori assumptions? That’s the problem. If we had a theory of logical probability—the sought-after kind of theory I mentioned earlier—we would not have to make any such undefended assumption. We would know how we logically ought to proceed in learning about our world. By making these a priori assumptions, we are just a priori choosing an inductive method; we are not bypassing the problem of justifying the inductive method.

I said earlier that the problem is that “no one has yet been able to develop a successful such theory.” This radically understates the dilemma. It suggests that there could really be a theory of logical probability, and that we have just not found it yet.

It is distressing, but true, that there simply cannot be a theory of logical probability! At least, not a theory that, given only the evidence and the hypotheses as input, outputs the degrees of confidence one really “should” have.

The reason is that to defend any one way of inductively proceeding requires adding constraints of some kind—perhaps in the form of extra assumptions—constraints that lead to a distribution of logical probabilities on the hypothesis set even before any evidence is brought to bear. That is, to get induction going, one needs something equivalent to a priori assumptions about the logical probabilities of the hypotheses.

But how can these hypotheses have degrees of confidence that they, a priori, simply must have. Any theory of logical probability aiming to once-and-for-all answer how to inductively proceed must essentially make an a priori assumption about the hypotheses, and this is just what we were hoping to avoid with our theory of logical probability.

That is, the goal of a theory of logical induction is to explain why we are justified in our inductive beliefs, and it does us no good to simply assume inductive beliefs in order to explain other inductive beliefs; inductive beliefs are what we are trying to explain!

=====

Adapted from chapter 3 of my first book, The Brain from 25,000 Feet. In that chapter I present a mathematico-philosophical “solution” to the riddle of induction (a theory published jointly with Tim Barber). The full story can be read here: http://www.changizi.com/ChangiziBrain25000Chapter3.pdf

~~~~

This first appeared August 3, 2010, at *Science 2.0*.

*Mark Changizi is Professor of Human Cognition at 2AI, and the author of The Vision Revolution (Benbella Books) and the upcoming book Harnessed: How Language and Music Mimicked Nature and Transformed Ape to Man (Benbella Books).*

on November 18, 2010 at 4:48 pm |elias borisovadeductive or a deductive?

on November 23, 2010 at 3:39 am |changiziFixed. Thanks.

on November 18, 2010 at 5:42 pm |TonyInteresting post. Coincidentally, lately I’ve been thinking a lot about inductive arguments and how they relate to the scientific process. I’ve recently started reading The Fabric of Reality by David Deutsch and he has some really interesting ideas about it. His philosophy is largely based on Karl Popper and attempts to replace inductive reasoning with “explanation” based reasoning. The basic idea is the scientific process isn’t really pursuing generalities from observations but instead concerned with constructing “explanations” (theoretical models) that solve “problems” with our conception of reality (either observational or conceptual). For example, in the General Theory of Relativity Einstein found that mass and energy warp space and time. There were no set of logical inductive arguments that would take one from observations of planetary motion to conclude that time and space had to be warped. The General Theory of Relativity was put forth because it was a good explanation for why inertial masses and gravitational masses are the same, and it was easily falsifiable (at least in principle). This made it a potentially promising explanation, and since it has held up to experimental tests, it remains a good explanation.

Obviously if you haven’t read the book, then you can’t comment on it directly. But I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts on Karl Popper’s philosophy of science if you’re familiar with that.

on November 23, 2010 at 3:46 am |changiziI think the same problems of induction reappear in the case of “solving problems with our conception of reality” as well. There may usually be many (potentially infinitely many) potential explanations that solve the conception-of-reality problem. Which one “wins” will depend crucially on how much a priori weighting each is given. The question is still, “Where do we get a priori weights?” I.e., beliefs in the plausibility of explanations prior to evidence (prior to knowing what world one is in)?

As for Karl Popper, I’ve never been a believer that falsification is especially key. Falsifiability is just one facet of evidence modulation via evidence. Disconfirmability is much weaker, and enough of it put together can eventually falsify.

-Mark

on November 19, 2010 at 6:17 pm |2010-11-19 Spike activity « Mind Hacks[…] a fantastic piece on the Changizi Blog on the philosophy behind scientific […]

on November 20, 2010 at 12:25 am |alexholcombeThe whole issue of priors and reasoning in science is certainly an incredibly difficult and unsolved problem. It seems there’s been progress on one front, though- your piece seems to concord with the traditional belief that parsimony (Ockham’s razor) cannot be justified without some kind of circular reasoning- when you say that we can’t justify a priori favoring a linear fit over a parabola. Check out the Ockham efficiency theorem that purports to show that parsimony is “the uniquely most efficient strategy for converging to the truth” http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/kk3n/ockham/Ockham.htm

on December 3, 2010 at 2:13 am |changiziThere’s always some kernel of a priori assumption inside that can’t itself be defended. But, that kernel need not itself be simplicity-related. ..and so it need not be circular. I’ll have to read his paper carefully to find exactly where his kernel is. In my own work, Occam’s Razor gets justified without having to assume simplicity-favoring. Instead, the “kernel” in my theory are two simple symmetry principles. …these amount to incredibly weak a priori assumptions, but they are still assumptions, or presumptions. They are not, however, assumptions that say to favor simplicity. And so simplicity-favoring gets explained, rather than circularly explained.

on April 30, 2011 at 11:35 am |Daniel TungHi

In one school of the subjective bayesian theory, there is a saying: no probability in, no probability out. To obtain the posterior probabilities for the hypotheses, you also need to have prior probabilities, which are informed by our background knowledges and any prior assumptions.

In this view, evidences alone do not suffice for us to assign any definite probabilities for the hypotheses. This is because evidences belongs to the objective part and the probabilities are subjective. So this “ought to” is always conditioned – we ought to assign certain probabilities provided that we have certain prior probabilities

I prefer this view over the logical probabilistic theories (eg. those that advocated by E.T. Jaynes).

I am curious about this usage on vision theories, and cognition in general. Is it true that what we perceive do contain certain prior assumptions about the world and ourselves?

on May 2, 2011 at 1:21 am |changiziI agree on “no probability in, no probability out.” Here’s my theory of induction… http://changizi.com/ChangiziBrain25000Chapter3.pdf (first version of it which appeared in Synthese).

On vision and cognition, definitely true that our brains possess prior assumptions, which guide how they learn.