I’m not necessarily interested in dialectics nor rhetoric.
The former is purely a discussion relegated to exchange of terms,
definitions, concepts and ideas whereas the latter discusses the possibilities,
being deductive reasoning. I looked up the term “induction”
as it is described in two ways:
1.) the process or action of bringing about or giving rise to something.
[eg. the induction of malformations by radiation”]
2.) the inference of a general law from particular instances.
[eg. “the admission that laws of nature cannot be established by induction”]
The first definition, and the example to the second one which is an axiom,
taken to be definitive of the term itself, is contradictory in retrospect.
The process of bringing about or giving rise which is akin to and not unlike
the term “creativity” is antithetical to the process of strictly evidence-based
inference contrasted against logical inference (which I feel also doesn’t hold much substance),
to put it as descriptively as I can as of now. Now, let me explain:
Gathering evidence is not the same as bringing about something which is a creative process and here I am making a three-way distinction: Between induction, first principles and “creativity” in the truest sense of the word and I don’t mean that abysmal term “creative writing” or anything of similar notion. What’s creative cannot be taught because the two are contradictory. The former defies description, much less explanation and the latter is a process of Thought which begets reactions (all Thought does). I don’t think one can distinguish between Thought and mechanistic events or reactions that it leads to. It’s usually described as a sequence (it can only be logical which goes to explain why Wittgenstein said, “If you’re thinking then you’re using logic.”) which is a term I have problem with but only because there’s an error here in how Language is used that needs to be fixed. What we mean when we use the word “sequence” is to explain away an event by splitting it into a series of events. I know this may not be definitively true when referring to a dictionary or some other text that preferably purely defines. But, I think the problem that I’m referring to here is one that is an infinite regress of sorts where one can keep expanding the bigger picture until one reaches the first cause or keep dissecting all the way to the infinitesimal or even continue the sequence until the end of all things mechanical. This is somewhat a Language’s equivalent of the arithmetical problems referred to as Gödel’s incompleteness theorems. I’m supposing that the two ought to be connected in some manner. I think when we achieve pure description we will find this connection between Language or Thought and Arithmetic.
All inductions which are based on first principles which in turn are based on Language or Thought are fragmented and thus purely descriptive. What’s creative cannot be described. This is “The Problem” that I was referring to in my other post https://superspock.in/2020/09/07/the-first-cause-and-consciousness/. I meant it when I stated that this cannot be solved. It can only be dissolved. [Ludwig Wittgenstein Quote: “The solution to the problem of life is seen in the vanishing of this problem.”]