addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramFill 1linklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo

Building Knowledge

  • Feb 14, 2013 · 7:00 PM
  • This location is shown only to members

The ancient philosophers did not think much about the problem of induction. For them, there never was a problem.

Induction, however, is problematic for sophistic skeptics, both presocratic and postmodern. Why do they think so?

Starting from nothing, we have acquired knowledge. We have discovered many things about the nature of the world. As a civilization, we have increased our wealth of knowledge over time. That logical method by which each mind employs to discover new knowledge is induction. So, the philosophical issue is not over whether induction doesn't exist or that it doesn't work. Like rain on a cloudy, low-pressured day, induction happens. Rather, the issue is over whether one can induce well enough to yield truth categorically and certainty nonprobabilistically.

We are going to explore the skeptics' problem of induction and why it is irresolvable for them. Certain errors of thought are suggested as endemic. If we have time left over, we will explore a theory of induction based on how children learn their first generalizations. We will see why the once-burnt-twice-shy sampling thesis is valid--that is to say, in every case, you need but one single example to make the inductive inference.

Join or login to comment.

  • A former member
    A former member

    After the meetup there was some discussion about Tom's worksheets that leave holes for us to use our thinking to fill them in. It reminded me of an artist whose work was recently on display at the Museum of Contemporary Art in La Jolla, who left holes and encourages us to fill them in. I am not claiming to correctly explain this artist or that the analogy is good but I looked it up in case anyone was curios. He is a print artist named John Baldessari.
    http://www.mcasd.org/exhibitions/john-baldessari-print-retrospective-collections-jordan-d-schnitzer-and-his-family-founda
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Baldessari

    February 17, 2013

  • Tim

    I struggled with "proving" how perceptions are self-evidential, but after discussing with Tom, I'm now on board with Foundationalism. Would love to discuss the criticisms against Foundationalism in a future meeting. I think it's good to understand views from all sides.

    February 15, 2013

  • Mark G.

    Good information. It's nice to learn about an epistemology that is not based on skepticism.

    February 15, 2013

  • Camilia S.

    Fine.

    February 14, 2013

  • A former member
    A former member

    Sorry I can't make it. I like the topic. I'm just juggling interests. Another meetup is scheduled over this one. Enjoy. I'll have to catch up with someone what was covered.

    February 14, 2013

  • Tom O.

    Ha, now I have seen it all... or am I hallucinating? The Pope isn't Catholic.

    February 11, 2013

    • Tom O.

      Worse, he has his own design, for his life!

      February 12, 2013

    • Jae A.

      Quit kidding yourself. Like religion itself, his resignation is political.

      February 14, 2013

  • Tim

    I've been meaning to attend these meetings, but work has been killing me. I'm going to try my best to not stay late in the office this time!

    February 13, 2013

  • Tom O.

    At one of last month's meetings, someone asked a delightful question meant to elicit puzzlement: If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? Well, it does, and it doesn't, in different respects. I am reminded of this episode for its similarity to the following puzzle:

    Given the forest abound in skepticism, does a discovery of a truth make a dent? At this upcoming meeting, I am hoping that we will raze the forest with the truth about induction. But if truth is as what we have discussed, a second question applies: If a man chances upon a truth, does he know it?

    February 12, 2013

7 went

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy