Induction and statistics
Good morning Rabbi, yesterday I read Two Carts and a Balloon. Can’t we base the problem of induction on statistics that are based on mathematics that is a priori? After all, there is no clear line to the situation in which we feel comfortable using induction, and it is clear that this is a statistical matter (the more cases there are, the more certainty we feel in generalizing).
It’s not for nothing that I asked you to clarify the question. I don’t understand it. I would be happy if you could also show me a space for two strollers. I think you’re quoting inaccurately.
The problem that arose yesterday is that we cannot infer the future from what happened in the past, I ask why not actually? It is clear that this is a matter of statistics which is itself a priori (part of mathematics). It is clear a priori that if I see ten times that different objects fall at a constant speed, then it means that all objects fall at a constant speed. It is clear that if an event has happened X times then it will probably continue to happen. Why can't this be based on statistics? The probability that a certain event has happened a number of times shows that it will probably continue to happen.
This is not a matter of statistics. There is no statistical consideration that tells us that what was is what will be. Hume himself tried to base it on the principle of causality (and then perhaps we can talk about statistics), but rejected this by saying that causality is not observational either.
Statistics are not a priori. The theory is a priori, but its applications in the world are not. They are the product of observation that tells us that a certain statistical theory can be applied to the situation before us. Just as quantum theory is not a branch of mathematics but of physics, even though it uses a mathematical description. See on this in column 50, 318 and more.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
