A while ago, I posted on the interesting case of Swiss-American psychiatrist Elizabeth Kubler-Ross, best known for developing "The Five Stages of Grief". In brief, after a successful career in psychiatry, Kubler-Ross wound up in thrall to a transparent New Age charlatan named Jay Barham. She wasted her time, money, and reputation believing in, and defending, this man even long after his deception was exposed. You can read that thread here: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1306816,1306816#msg-1306816

My point was that neither extraordinary intelligence nor great education are guarantees against winding up with beliefs so wrong that they seem almost insane. In fact, as (I think) Michael Shermer noted once, there are certain thinking errors that *only* smart people can make.

Take the case of the famous Austrian philosopher, Karl Popper. Popper is still revered by many; and yet, like Kubler-Ross and so many others, he wound up believing in the most absurd nonsense imaginable. A close examination of his writings shows how he got there.

First, some quick background.

"Induction" describes a thinking process in which we infer something about the unobserved based on the observed. Say we have used Grandma's chocolate chip cookie recipe a hundred times, and the cookies have always wound up tasting the same. Based on those observations, we can infer something about tomorrow's batch: if we follow the same cooking procedures using the same ingredients as before, the cookies will again taste the same. That is, we have made an *inductive inference* about the unobserved (tomorrow's cookies) based on the observed (past cookies).

This is an intuitive thinking process which all humans employ. But the Scottish philosopher David Hume argued that this effective thinking process cannot be rationally justified.

Here's why: if we assume that cookies made in the future will taste like cookies made the same way in the past, then we are also necessarily assuming - inductively inferring - that *the laws of physics in the future will operate as they did in the past*. That inductive inference - that the laws of physics will continue to operate - underlies every single other inductive inference we can make, whether it be about building cars, baking cookies, or training dogs.

Hume argues therefore that defending the validity of any specific inductive inference ("tomorrow's cookies will taste like yesterday's") requires us to have already assumed the validity of an underlying inductive inference that *the laws of physics will operate in the future as they have in the past*. That is, to defend the conclusion that induction is valid requires that we assume its validity in the first place; and this, Hume points out, is a fallacy known as "begging the question" - a circular argument in which a conclusion already exists in the premise. (See https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question ). And for that reason, induction - a thinking process without which we could not survive in this world - is actually rationally indefensible.

At least, so says David Hume.

Karl Popper encountered Hume's "Problem of Induction" as a young philosophy student, and immediately concluded it was legitimate and devastating. Tormented by the thought that humanity's default thought process was actually a giant, indefensible fallacy, Karl Popper decided to devote his life to "solving Hume's Problem of Induction". And that is where the problems began.

More to come. Comments welcome.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2014 08:38AM by Tal Bachman.

The guy who wrote Sherlock Holmes believed in woo-woo spiritualism stuff like fairies and seances.

I've dipped into these issues a bit. My conclusive statement is "Life is a series of one-way streets." IOW, if you choose one path over another, you can never go back and choose the other one.

Even science (per Hume) cannot guarantee that today's experiment will exactly replicate yesterday's.

But it's close. And if we didn't rely on close (in some cases, VERY close), I'm thinking that we wouldn't see much progress. No Hoover Dams or Golden Gate Bridges, etc.

So, even though the universe has changed since I went to sleep last night, there are still some things I can count on. And that makes me relieved and happy..... in most cases.

Perhaps I misread your original post. Are you saying that the problem of induction isn't really a problem? If so, I think it is upon you to show us this.

The history of discovery, to me, pretty much illustrates the problem of induction in the flesh over and over again. There are so many cases where unexpected observations violated our routine expectations.

The universe if full of what Nassim Nicholas Taleb calls "black swan events".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2014 10:29AM by archytas.

archytas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The universe if full of what Nassim Nicholas Taleb
> calls "black swan events".

Big fan. Ever for the true iconoclasts.

The quote you might be looking for is in Chapter 2 of Shermer's The Believing Brain.

--
"A common myth most of us intuitively accept is that there is a negative correlation between intelligence and belief: as intelligence goes up belief in superstition or magic goes down. This, in fact, turns out not to be the case, especially as you move up the IQ spectrum. In professions in which everyone is above average in IQ (doctors, lawyers, engineers, and so forth), there is no relationship between intelligence and success because at that level other variables come into play that determine career outcomes (ambition, time allocation, social skills, networking, luck, and so on). Similarly, when people encounter claims that they know little about (which is most claims for most of us), intelligence is usually not a factor in belief, with one exception: once people commit to a belief, the smarter they are the better they are at rationalizing those beliefs. Thus: smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for nonsmart reasons."

Archytas - This thread isn't about me solving the Problem of Induction. It's about a case study in how smart people can go off the rails. Popper's attempts led him to very strange places.

I'll post part two when I can.

As mammals, we are driven by a strong intuitive instinct that flows from the ancient parts of the brain. Emotional instincts hold primacie in most psyches, even in braniacs like the folks you mention. No one is immune. No one is a complete logician.

I'm anxiously awaiting part two.

Just as an aside, I think you'll find that in the sciences as least, the "problem of induction" is well-known, and reasonably dealt with. It's dealt with by not *assuming* that (for example) the "laws of physics" will continue to operate as they always have, but by simply using that inductive conclusion as a "working hypothesis."

In other words, do things as if the "laws of physics" will continue to operate as they always have. Then carefully check your results to see if that was, indeed, the case. That way no unwarranted assumptions have been made, and final conclusions are only drawn from experimental/observed results, not inductive reasoning. :)

If something in your results shows the "laws of physics" didn't operate as they always have, you wind up with a new avenue of research to pursue -- a bonus!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2014 12:52PM by ificouldhietokolob.

In his book The Psychic Mafia, Keene told of his partner, a psychic medium named "Raoul" in the book. Some in their congregation still believed that Raoul was genuine even after he openly admitted that he was a fake. Keene wrote "I knew how easy it was to make people believe a lie, but I didn't expect the same people, confronted with the lie, would choose it over the truth. ... No amount of logic can shatter a faith consciously based on a lie."[1][5]

According to The Skeptic's Dictionary, an example of this syndrome is evidenced by an event in 1988 when James Randi, at the request of an Australian news program, coached stage performer José Alvarez to pretend he was channelling a two-thousand-year-old spirit named "Carlos". Even after it was revealed to be a fictional character created by Randi and Alvarez, many people continued to believe that "Carlos" was real.[4] Randi commented: "no amount of evidence, no matter how good it is or how much there is of it, is ever going to convince the true believer to the contrary."[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True-believer_syndrome

Isn't this just a problem of possibility vs. probability?

Let's say I bake cookies over 100 days, and they all taste about the same. Sure it is possible that tomorrow the magnetic fields in the universe polarize in such a way that my cookies taste like broccoli.

But the PROBABILITY is that tomorrow they will taste about the same as my previous other batches.

The possibility of the sky falling does not negate the quantitative observation of consistent results.

redkoolaidmonster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But the PROBABILITY is that tomorrow they will
> taste about the same as my previous other
> batches.


I think that's the fallacy Tal was pointing out (and rightly so).
They're independent events -- the cookies baked yesterday and the cookies baked today. Yesterday's results have zero bearing on what today's results will be, unless you make some kind of inductive assumption (which, of course, we all do!).

Gamblers fall prey to this fallacy all the time -- they'll roll seven in craps four times in a row, then figure the "probability" of the next roll being a seven is very high, as the dice are "hot." Or very low, since they just rolled four in a row (the inverse of the fallacy). In fact, the probability of rolling a seven on any roll is always exactly the same, no matter what happened on previous rolls :)

Not working with inductive hypotheses, though, can certainly be taken to extreme (and rather silly) levels -- while I can't be "absolutely certain" that, as I walk down a flight of stairs, gravity will continue to operate as it always has and pull my foot down to the next step, it's rather silly to assume it *won't* continue to do so. There's no need for me to call every scientist in the world between each step and ask if the earth's mass has changed significantly in the past second.

So the point I was making was: do the experiment. Bake the cookies. Take the step down the stairs. See what happens. It's reasonable to use "the laws of physics" as a working hypothesis, otherwise we'd never do anything. Just be prepared to inquire further if something odd happens :)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2014 01:48PM by ificouldhietokolob.

If you buy lottery tickets, the chance of "1 2 3 4 5" and a bonus number of "6" is just as likely as any other combination of numbers.

So what makes a person keep going back to his favorite restaurant? It's the high probability of having another good meal. Not a guarantee.

I submit that some of yesterday's results DO, in fact, have bearing on what today's results will be. More cookies & another good meal =/= a roll of dice.

Why do some intelligent people "wind up with insane beliefs?" Because they perceive a high probability that prior results (e.g. a "spiritual experience") will have, or might have bearing on today's life experience.

IMO, these people have not yet honestly examined yesterday's results.

Agreed. I think what I am getting at is the the consistency of the universe can be demonstrated through quantitative experiments. If we successfully complete the experiment enough, we can determine that the universe "works this way" (ie. baking cookies with the same ingredients, the same way, produces the same taste).

I am nearly always guaranteed successful cookies because the reliability of the universal laws allow me to make the cookies each time.

Or in other words, flipping a coin is always 50/50 no matter what the previous results were. But if I were allowed to physically turn the coin to a specific side, I would be almost guaranteed the results I expect and want. I physically make the cookies, so my success at achieving the same taste is pretty well sure.

You bake cookies for me for 100 days. I will let you know if any batches taste like broccoli.

I love science!

But there is no way of calculating probabilities that does not rely on the assumption that induction works. Yesterday's results may or may not have some bearing on today's results de facto, depending on how the universe is constructed; Hume's point was that you cannot prove that they do in any logically rigorous way.
Expecting that the future will resemble the past because past futures resembled past pasts is using induction to justify induction, a circular argument.

After his mother's death, Harry Houdini wasted time and money trying to connect with spirits of the deceased through mediums. Then he realized the spiritualists were frauds and tirelessly campaigned against them.

One might think him an exmo.

Hume is a great thinker but he failed in handful of aspects on this one.

1. The bottom up approach of inductive reasoning never has been a way to test a hypothesis, only a way come up with a hypothesis. Using the Sun example, bottom up would be to say I see the sun rise every day so it will probably rise every day. This is opposed to a top down test of the hypothesis that the sun will rise every day. The top down would include overall pieces of information like, there is a sun, the earth rotates around the sun, the earth spins around in 24 hours, there is an axial tilt, and so on. All of the information leads to the deduction that the sun will rise. There is nothing wrong with this.

2. From a scientific point of view it makes no sense to go bottom up because you have no way of proving that you started on a valid premise. From a logical point of view the only tool you have is an inductive premise since you cannot not observe something. If for 40 years you have observed the sun coming up you would have to be a special kind of person to think it might not come up tomorrow. It is illogical to assume that, all things being equal, the same thing that happened yesterday isn't going to happen today. Hume is trying to make a point but he has to ignore to many things to hit the point.

3. Hume assumes that to reach a specific point of probability one must either go bottom up or top down when that is rarely the case. Let's say that it snows during the night, I wake up and see the snow, and I reasonably guess that it is cold outside. The fact that it is cold is confirmed the second I decide to go to work. I now have not only a guess that it is cold but also evidence to support my hypothesis.

I like what you are trying to do but I can't help but think this is a far more nuanced discussion. Smart people believe strange things because smart isn't defined correctly. To me the fact that someone who knows a lot doesn't know something isn't surprising at all. If you would define smart as being able to understand stupid things as stupid you would have to admit a whole world of people that might be called dumb today to the club.

Redkoolaid - Yeah, one of the things that Popper ends up doing (through a process I'll describe asap when I'm out of the recording studio here) is getting himself into a situation in which he has to deny probabilities. I know it sounds nuts, but there it is.

Jacob - A properly nuanced discussion of all this would lead to 10,000 word posts :). Just trying to fill in the basic stuff so I can try to explain why I think Popper is a case study in how smart people can be led to adopt utterly absurd beliefs.

Be back soon as I can.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2014 09:16PM by Tal Bachman.

But the reason that even following Grandma's recipe with pin-point accuracy doesn't reproduce the EXACT taste of Grandma's cooking is this: our memories of that wonderful cooking are colored by the surrounding events.

My best friend and I talked about this one for years. My grandmother gave each of us a little notebook of our favorites, from among her recipes, tied up with a little ribbon, and carefully hand-written in her beautiful Germanic script, when each of us was a young bride.

We wondered why, even though the results were good, they were never quite as wonderful as we remembered when SHE made them. But then, when she made them, BFF and I were silly, giggly teeny-boppers, and Grandma was a loving presence, cooking our favorite dishes. So our memories were colored with the fun of a sleepover, whispered confidences, staying up way past our bedtimes, AND Grandma's wonderful cooking.

When we were young wives and then mothers ourselves, with jobs and family responsibilities, we might have followed the recipes carefully, but we were tired from a hard workday, or maybe dealing with cranky husbands or cranky children - no wonder those recipes didn't taste quite as celestial as we remembered them.

At least, that's the conclusion WE came to.