Ron,

This extract from my introduction to grammar on the role of hypothesis may 
be helpful:

      Induction.  The 17th Century philosopher, Francis Bacon, extended the 
set of acceptable tools of rational thought when he pointed out how 
investigators infer a scientific theory from the observed facts whenever 
they generalize. Generalization is the logical process of induction from a 
number of specific instances. Suppose scientists make the "same" observation 
a number of times. After so many observations they feel they are entitled to 
conclude (with some degree of certainty) that they are observing the effects 
of some general principle. (This kind of induction is distinct from what 
mathematicians know as induction. These people define mathematical induction 
with statements about numbers that make it for them in actuality an 
extension of deduction.) Bacon maintained that support for facts could come 
by both deduction and induction.


      Logical induction vs. deduction.  In the mid-18th Century David Hume, 
clearly demonstrated the fact that Bacon's brand of logical induction cannot 
strictly qualify as a mode of reasoning. In order to establish induction on 
a basis as secure as deduction, philosophers are obliged to accept the 
validity of the conclusion (the general principle) to the same extent as the 
assumption. Only then would they be able to infer the conclusion with the 
same certainty as the assumptions.


      Inference.  Inference by induction is a way of connecting experience - 
of making sense out of a collection of observations. The general principle 
that the investigator induces is the result of numerous confirmations of a 
hypothesis with failure to disconfirm it. It was Karl Popper, who in modern 
times was responsible for the rejection of induction as a mode of reasoning 
(Popper, 1972). Popper emphasized strongly that induction is actually quite 
the equivalent of hypothesis and experiment.
      Bruce


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ronald Sheen" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 9:49 AM
Subject: Not so elementary, my dear Watson.Re: Inductive - Deductive:was New 
discussion intelligence and grammar learning


> Johanna's example of Holmes deducing something or other illustrates how 
> tricky the pair of words is.  On the one hand, he brings together a set of 
> facts and induces therefrom a conclusion as in 'I see, my dear fellow, 
> from your rough hands, your rasping cough, your wheezing and the coal dust 
> in your eyes that you are a miner.'   On the other hand, stretching it a 
> bit, I suppose one could say that Holmes has a set of rules of thumb such 
> as 'rough hands come from manual work' and 'a rasping cough and wheezing' 
> is a symptom of miners.   He then applies them to the facts before his 
> eyes and ears and draws together the conclusions from which he 
> induces...Then again, maybe he deduces...
>
> This is probably why in applied linguistics the terms 'implicit' and 
> 'explicit' have replaced the troublesome pair.
>
> Ron Sheen
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 
> at:
>     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
> 

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/