Induction, Surprisingly Not Involving Tesla in Any Way

So apparently there's a split within orthodox Objectivism over the induction problem, the question of whether inductive reasoning (e.g. science) leads to true knowledge. Schadenfreud is all well and good, but it's actually sorta ironic. Why?

Well, because the answer to the question that Aristotle gave is one of his key disputes with Plato, and yet apparently none of the Objectivists have cited this. I don't know why I'm surprised—since they're not really Aristotelians—but I thought it would be fun to talk about.

See, the answer a true Aristotelian gives to the question, "Does inductive reasoning give true knowledge?" is, "Mostly." Unfortunately it's not an absolute that makes Calvin's Total Depravity look wishy-washy, so of course Randroids wouldn't like it, but let me elaborate.

Aristotle differed from Plato, and also from the quasi-Platonists of the "Englightenment", in asserting that ideas are not remembered (or innate), but abstracted. See, Plato's theory of knowledge held that repeated occurrences of, say, mathematical or physical phenomena, serve to remind the soul of its time, between transmigrations, in the Realm of Form, where all such ideas exist.

Aristotle's, on the other hand, held that all such principles are simply abstracted from occurrences; if 3 guys give me 5 coins each, every day, it won't take long before I notice that I get 15 coins each time, and thus abstract to one block on the times table (if I am then brought 3 coins each by 5 guys I can abstract to another principle, the commutative property). The principles are instantiated by the particular occurrences I abstract from—an important principle of epistemology, that you work from the specific to the general, not vice versa. So, of course, not real congenial to Ayn "Generalization Queen" Rand's followers.

In a way, the two theories of knowledge reflect their different metaphysics: Plato's remembered ideas are a part of his Hyperrealism and the eternal Realm of Form, while Aristotle's abstracted ideas are related to his ideas of potency and act, and mitigated realism. After all, none of the particular instances one abstracts a principle from will perfectly express that principle, unless the particulars are themselves abstract (e.g., the 15 coins in my example will vary slightly in physical properties, even though 5 and 3 are always 5 and 3).

Anyway, plainly, given that Aristotelianism considers all knowledge to come from abstractions from experience, its answer to the induction problem is, "If there are no errors in the observation, and the observation is really indicative." Or in other words, "Mostly."

PS.Speaking of Rand, she blithely ignored the fact that Atlas isn't holding up the sky out of altruism, but because Zeus will kill him if he doesn't, but nevertheless her choice of mythological parallel is appropriate. The Titans, after all, are cognate to the Asuras...whose traits, according to the Bhagavad Gita, include lust, pride, greed, and conceit. Lord Krshna doesn't actually say that an Asura would consider Beethoven "malevolent", but I think it's implied.