Why are you atheist?

[lovett]

The manner in which they act is also compatible with their complete ignorance of the issue, or with their taking a sensible 'I don't know' position as anyone who has properly considered the problem should. I really don't think you've thought through the appropriate course of action that one would logically take if we accepted that such things were unknowable.

This is the crux, and you've completely ignored the arguments I made in my last post. Even if we outright denied induction there would be no real incentive to act any differently, and if we merely withhold judgement, our course of action would logically be more or less identical to that we would take if we believed in it, albeit with an extra sprinkling of uncertainty. My actions, and to a lesser extent the actions of those who have not even considered this issue, are completely compatible with an agnostic approach to induction.

As for the sky, my line of thought would be that I expect the grass to be green, the sky to be blue and the sun to be in the sky, but that I can't be sure that these things are necessarily true just because they were previously. If in making this argument you're trying to say that I would, without thinking, just assume that the sky would be blue, and therefore be surprised if it weren't, you may be right. My subconscious mind makes many simplistic assumptions that my conscious mind can overcome. My subconscious mind cannot fathom relativity, nor the fact that a solid object is composed almost entirely of empty space. Assumptions about induction are indeed built into my subconscious mind, but my conscious mind is a bit more sceptical.

T
If I categorically thought that induction were false I would probably continue to eat, and since I in fact take the much more justifiable position that I cannot possibly know, I think my course of action is not only compatible with this belief, but in fact demanded by it.

As I see it, it may or may not be true that my previous experiences necessarily leads to the conclusion that I should eat. If it is true I should most certainly continue eating otherwise I would perish. If it is not true, then this does not necessarily follow, though I have no real way of knowing and I might in any event suddenly morph into a giant octopus then turn inside out and explode. As you can see there are significant potential pitfalls to not eating, but no predictable pifalls to continuing eating, even if I were sure that induction were not valid.

The issue you seem to be exploring is what one would do if one took an agnostic stance towards induction. This isn't an explicit rejection but rather the stance "I don't Know". You're contending that this is your stance. We should note that this stance implicitly corroborates the proposition "I don't believe in Induction".

To illustrate via eating; You contend that one would naturally continue to eat because there are no pitfalls implicit in eating whilst significant pitfalls in refraining from eating. This isn't quite right. If one does not believe in Induction, one literally does not know what will happen next. When eating anything could happen; it could cause you to morph into a giant octopus, for example. Or it could make you immortal. We just wouldn't know which to expect. As many 'good' things could happen as 'bad' things; an infinite number of either. Our default position isn't to continue how we are because continuing how we are is a position predicated on induction. Our position would actually be one of real paralysis and real confusion. We would have no expectations about the future because those expectations come from induction. If we have no expectations about something then we we won't really act in anyway relating to that thing. We would do nothing and constantly wait for some sort of real knowledge. We could not distinguish between the possible good and bad results of an action because in a non-inductive world those results are completely unpredictable and consequently could not act as if continuing to eat would more likely lead to a positive outcome. This is how we act now and it is a course of action consistent with a belief in induction, not a lack of belief.

 

[Greizer85]

Doing nothing could morph you into a Twilight character. I didn't think this through: there are indeed infinite scenarios in which you survive and infinite in which you don't. My earlier estimate on the likelyhood of untimely demise was based on observing the current world; who's to say that in an inductionless world, one couldn't survive without oxygen, or without a brain even? I don't really rightly now whether there are any limits: how many different sets of natural laws can there be? Are there some laws that hold in every Universe? Anyway, I digress, and I think this is irrelevant in any case.

Would you object, Enkidu Warrior, to describing your position as comparable to that of an actor in a play? They don't believe they're another person, or even assume it; they only act like it. Similarly you act as if induction were valid, even while you really don't know for sure and don't believe it. If you agree with this, the question then becomes: why do you act as if induction were true? I'd imagine you'd answer: because induction is needed for survival, and anything else too really. Now, why is it needed for that? This is the question I'll let you answer yourself - and do tell me if you object to my earlier 'answers' that I put in your mouth, so to speak.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

The issue you seem to be exploring is what one would do if one took an agnostic stance towards induction. This isn't an explicit rejection but rather the stance "I don't Know". You're contending that this is your stance. We should note that this stance implicitly corroborates the proposition "I don't believe in Induction".

To illustrate via eating; You contend that one would naturally continue to eat because there are no pitfalls implicit in eating whilst significant pitfalls in refraining from eating. This isn't quite right. If one does not believe in Induction, one literally does not know what will happen next. When eating anything could happen; it could cause you to morph into a giant octopus, for example. Or it could make you immortal. We just wouldn't know which to expect. As many 'good' things could happen as 'bad' things; an infinite number of either. Our default position isn't to continue how we are because continuing how we are is a position predicated on induction. Our position would actually be one of real paralysis and real confusion. We would have no expectations about the future because those expectations come from induction. If we have no expectations about something then we we won't really act in anyway relating to that thing. We would do nothing and constantly wait for some sort of real knowledge. We could not distinguish between the possible good and bad results of an action because in a non-inductive world those results are completely unpredictable and consequently could not act as if continuing to eat would more likely lead to a positive outcome. This is how we act now and it is a course of action consistent with a belief in induction, not a lack of belief.

But if I'm agnostic, I'm naturally going act as though I believed, since as far as I can tell the induction-derived and induction-denying reasoning are equally (in)valid, while the induction-denying reasoning does not provide me with any suitable course of action. I cannot just dismiss induction given my agnosticism, and since it is the only reasoning that actually recommends one course of action over another, that's all I can do. The problem of induction therefore merely dilutes my reasoning. It can't change the outcome of my reasoning, because it doesn't, indeed can't, bias towards any particular course of action over another. I would only act as you described if I totally rejected induction as impossible.

 

[Gustave5436]

Doing nothing could morph you into a Twilight character. I didn't think this through: there are indeed infinite scenarios in which you survive and infinite in which you don't. My earlier estimate on the likelyhood of untimely demise was based on observing the current world; who's to say that in an inductionless world, one couldn't survive without oxygen, or without a brain even? I don't really rightly now whether there are any limits: how many different sets of natural laws can there be? Are there some laws that hold in every Universe? Anyway, I digress, and I think this is irrelevant in any case.)

Universes part of our own multiverse must be fundamentally similar on some level, since they all originate from the same initial singularity. Entirely separate universes (which are nonexistent from our point of view, even more so than the parallel ones posited by the many-worlds interpretation) could be unimaginably exotic.

 

[lovett]

But if I'm agnostic, I'm naturally going act as though I believed, since as far as I can tell the induction-derived and induction-denying reasoning are equally (in)valid, while the induction-denying reasoning does not provide me with any suitable course of action. I cannot just dismiss induction given my agnosticism, and since it is the only reasoning that actually recommends one course of action over another, that's all I can do. The problem of induction therefore merely dilutes my reasoning. It can't change the outcome of my reasoning, because it doesn't, indeed can't, bias towards any particular course of action over another. I would only act as you described if I totally rejected induction as impossible.

Does a religious agnostic act as if they believed? I don't think they do; Agnosticism is a statement of lack of belief. You're right in saying that this lack of belief does not provide one with a course of actions; that's entirely my point. You would be completely inactive if you did not believe in induction. There is no intrinsic reason why one would choose action over inaction in such a situation, and thus no reason why one would act as if they believed in induction whilst actually remaining agnostic about it. Yet, as we do all act in a way that shows we believe in induction one must assume that we do in fact believe in induction.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

Does a religious agnostic act as if they believed? I don't think they do; Agnosticism is a statement of lack of belief. You're right in saying that this lack of belief does not provide one with a course of actions; that's entirely my point. You would be completely inactive if you did not believe in induction. There is no intrinsic reason why one would choose action over inaction in such a situation, and thus no reason why one would act as if they believed in induction whilst actually remaining agnostic about it. Yet, as we do all act in a way that shows we believe in induction one must assume that we do in fact believe in induction.

Ok, I was enjoying this debate, but now you're just being dense. You continue to completely ignore the distinction between denial of induction and sensible agnosticism. Induction may be valid or it may be invalid. Both are unprovable, and the agnostic does not, as you would claim, simply reject induction, but remains uncommitted. Your "agnostic" strawman is not agnostic at all, since they have jumped to the irrational conclusion that induction is not valid. Given that the agnost has no means of choosing between the two possible truths, and given that one of the possibilities doesn't offer any viable alternative course of action, it's a complete no brainer that they would act in manner consistent with induction being valid, despite their lack of belief. Denial of induction does not council inaction - it councils nothing. If that were your sole source of reason, then you might well respond with inaction, but the agnost would hedge their bets by going with the only course of action that offers any hope.

Unless you can demonstrate to me that 'Induction is not valid', as opposed to 'Induction cannot be proven to be valid', I'll continue to live my rational life while you convince yourself that the rest of us are as irrational as you.