Induction

Induction is the process of inferring a general conclusion from particular observations. Objectivism treats it as valid and as the source of all general knowledge, holding that the traditional "problem of induction" arises from a mistaken demand rather than from a real gap in human cognition.

The traditional problem

David Hume argued that no number of observed cases can guarantee an unobserved one: that the sun has risen every day so far does not entail that it will rise tomorrow, since the inference assumes a uniformity of nature that itself cannot be established without circularity. On this account induction is a habit of expectation rather than a form of knowledge.

The conclusion has been widely accepted, and it is the root of a great deal of modern skepticism. Objectivism rejects it.

The Objectivist answer

The response turns on causality and on what certainty requires.

• Causality is the law of identity applied to action. A thing acts according to its nature. Induction is not a leap from "some" to "all" on the strength of counting; it is the identification of what an entity is and therefore what it does. One properly analysed case can establish a causal connection, because the connection holds in virtue of the entity's nature rather than in virtue of the tally.
• Certainty is contextual. The demand that a conclusion be guaranteed against all possible future evidence is the demand for omniscience. Objectivism holds that a conclusion proved within the full context of available evidence is knowledge, and that later discovery can extend or delimit it without retroactively making it arbitrary. See Certainty and Context.

The generalisation is therefore not a probabilistic bet but an identification, and it is held with the scope its evidence supports.

Relation to concept formation

Induction and concept formation are closely related, because forming a concept is itself an act of generalising: grouping existents by their common attributes and omitting the particular measurements. Once a person holds the concept "man", the observation that men are mortal is not a survey of individuals but a claim about the kind. See Measurement omission.

This is also why definitions matter to induction: a definition names the fundamental characteristic that gives rise to the others, and that is exactly what a causal generalisation depends on. See Fundamental and Rule of Fundamentality.

Status of the topic

Rand did not publish a full treatment of induction, and identified it as unfinished business in Objectivist epistemology. The most developed presentation in the literature is Leonard Peikoff and David Harriman's, in The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics (2010), which is itself debated among Objectivists rather than settled doctrine.

See also

• Epistemology · Logic · Reason · Proof
• Causality · Identity · Certainty · Context
• Concept formation · Measurement omission · Fundamental
• Skepticism · Arbitrary · Logical Terms

Discussion

• How does Objectivism disprove skepticism?
• A criticism of Objectivist epistemology
• Introduction to Logic by H.W.B. Joseph

References

• Rand, Ayn. Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. The Objectivist, 1967.
• Peikoff, Leonard. Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, chapter 5.
• Harriman, David. The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics. New American Library, 2010.