[Lecture Five] Induction in Physics and Philosophy
by Dr. Leonard Peikoff
Total Time: 2 hours, 8 minutes
Course summary: This course features Dr. Peikoff’s presentation of his solution to the problem of induction. He discusses the axioms of induction and the role of measurement omission and relates them to the process of forming generalizations. By comparing these features to the process of concept formation, Peikoff indicates the parallels in logic that give rise to new insights about the relationship between induction and deduction. Special attention is given to the similarities between physics and philosophy. Read more »
In this lecture: This lecture continues the discussion of the history of physics and its importance to understanding induction. Dr. Peikoff continues his discussion of mathematics in physics.
Study Guide
This material is designed to help you digest the lecture content. You can also download below a PDF study guide for the entire course.
| What was the breakthrough achieved by James Clerk Maxwell? |
| How did induction feature in this step in physics? Mathematics? |
| Why is it so vital to validate inductive fundamentals? |
| What is the role of a principle that functions as a primary? |
| What is required to declare that an inductive fundamental is valid? |
| What are the main sources of errors in induction? |
| What are the five positive principles of induction? |
| Describe the parallels between these and concept formation. |
Q&A Guide
Below is a list of questions from the audience taken from this lecture, along with (approximate) time stamps.
| 2:00:00 | It’s not always self-evident that a generalization is first-level. I’m worried that I might fool myself into accepting a generalization as first-level when it really needs to be reduced. What’s the answer? |
| 2:01:20 | In the history of the atomic theory, it seems that scientists were trying to use the theory to try to explain things when it was still just in the “possible” stage. How is this legitimate and how do you distinguish this from the positivist notion that we just have models that are useful whether or not they correspond to reality? |
| 2:02:55 | I’m having trouble understanding how a math or calculus that is derived from continuously divisible variables can validate discrete phenomenon such as atomism or quanti or atomic orbits. |
| 2:03:35 | In the first lecture you give a razor that you did not give a name to, that generalizations are not to be multiplied beyond necessity. Doesn’t that suffer from the same weakness that Occam’s Razor does? |
| 2:05:21 | I was hoping you could comment on modern science education, particularly at the college level. Is learning things from textbooks necessarily bad or not? |