So, I was trying to figure out exactly what Socrates was doing, and think I figured it out. But it made me realize I don't know how induction (deriving from inductive reasoning) works.
Socratic questioning:
You take someone's claim, induce(derive by inductive reasoning) a general principle, deduct a different claim from the same principle, disprove the new example, this disproves the general principle, which leaves the original claim unsupported. Repeat until they run out of principles, which leaves their claim ultimately unsupported.
But if someone says we shouldn't paint someone's house purple without their permission, how do we know which abstract principle to induce?
My mind goes immediately to "don't do things to people's stuff without their permission." But how? Why didn't I think the rule was "don't paint things purple," or "don't paint houses?" Obviously in this case, my familiarity is influencing me, but what about in unfamiliar situations?
Does anyone know how to reduce inductive reasoning? What algorithm are we using? What's going on in a mind which outputs an inductive inference?
But if someone says we shouldn't paint someone's house purple without their permission, how do we know which abstract principle to induce?
Here's a humorous illustration of the difficulty of selecting the correct abstract principle.
If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post, then it goes here.
Notes for future OT posters:
1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.
2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one. (Immediately before; refresh the list-of-threads page before posting.)
3. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.
4. Unflag the two options "Notify me of new top level comments on this article" and "