BUILDING A LOGICAL MIND --- Episode 3

  UNDERSTANDING THE WAY REASONABLE MEN AND 
                                       WOMEN THINK 


                                             INDUCTION

Men like Aristotle considered the science of reason an ethical exercise that would best guide human beings in their relationships with other human beings, and, by extension, a society's relationship with other societies. It was during his time, the fourth century B.C., that most of the rules of reason we still follow today were established.

A good way to learn these rules is to transport yourself back a few hundred thousand years and consider the way reason itself evolved. Our ancient ancestors were able to wrestle their way out of a hostile environment and eventually dominate it because of reason. One of the simplest ways they reasoned was inductively, that is, by drawing conclusions from observing the repetition of events. Ever since they could remember, our early forebears observed that the antlers of deer fell off every winter ; once they began herding sheep, they noticed that most sheep lived only sixteen years. Because of such repetition in events, they could make generalizations about the world : deer antlers fall off every winter ; sheep die on the average at sixteen years of age. This ability to make generalizations helped them gain control of their world because they could then make predictions and plan their existence  in nature, rather than just to react to it. Because of induction, they learned when to plant, harvest, prepare for a cold winter, migrate, fish, and hunt. Farmers still rely on inductions made centuries ago : plant underground crops when the moon is waning; plant above-ground crops when the moon is waxing. Noting this repetition of events in nature not only helped the primitive humans take some control of their destiny, but also made them acutely aware that there are things in the world called truths. If there were truths about the seasons and about poisonous plants, then there must be other truths as well. The world, then, is not only manageable, it is understandable because of these certainties. Arriving logically at these certainties eventually became a science. Scientists would rely on the inductive method of thought to confirm the truth that water freezes at thirty-two degrees Fahrenheit, that the earth completes its rotation approximately every twenty-four hours, that light objects and heavy objects fall at the same rate of speed.

Induction, then, is the method of arriving at a probable truth by relying upon the repetition of the same fact to lead you to a generalization or conclusion --- no matter how mundane : every time I've used that soap my hands have broken out. There must be something in the soap that makes my hands break out. Although the inductive method of reasoning is a very useful way to arrive at conclusions, it can be abused, as it often is by the propagandist. However, Aristotle and his colleagues have set out some rules by which to judge the accuracy of any induction. 

      HOW TO TEST THE ACCURACY OF ANY INDUCTION

1.) SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE 

   I've owned my Volkswagen less than a week and I'm already having trouble with the transmission. A friend at my gym is likewise having trouble with the transmission in her Volkswagen. I conclude that all Volkswagens have bad transmissions. In arriving at this conclusion, I am moving inductively ---from the observation of specific examples to a generalization --- but I'm arriving at a conclusion too hastily. The thousands of other Volkswagen owners may never have had trouble with their transmissions. So while induction can be an accurate way of arriving at conclusions, they must not be drawn too hastily. The rule : In all inductive arguments the evidence must be sufficient to warrant the conclusion.