Dear General_Re: Logical induction is like "mother's milk" to me. Are you suggesting that I should now engage myself in a formal inquiry as to what "mother's milk" is? Should I puzzle myself over an indefinite period of time exploring the mystery of the naval?
From another point of view: The process of logical induction goes by reasoning from a particular case to a general conclusion. Can you articulate the particular case that has led you to whatever general conclusion you have? If so, what is that general conclusion? And what is its significance in terms of the problems of human existence -- personal, social, cultural, historical -- if any?
I assume you agree with me that human problems ought to be put in the forefront, in terms of the settlement of the present general social chaos....
If I'm barking up the wrong tree here, IMHO it's only for lack of guidance from you, in terms of the further articulation of our common argument, from your side. My neck is already "on the block."
FWIW. I truly appreciate your message.
You will forgive me if I am somewhat skeptical by nature, I trust.
From another point of view: The process of logical induction goes by reasoning from a particular case to a general conclusion.
But it does so probabilistically. Which is why when you say things like this:
What we end up with, in historical sciences such as archeology, anthropology, etc., is "a likely story," at best.
...as though it's some sort of critique, it makes no sense. Of course it produces "a likely story" - that's all logical induction can do. All historical sciences reason inductively, by necessity, as do non-historical sciences when necessary.
It appears that you are separating disciplines according to this label of "inductive" or "non-inductive", when you seem to be critically misunderstanding what exactly induction produces, but no such distinction exists in reality. And then you go on to say things like this:
I suspect that archeology's account of the construction of the Great Pyramids is a myth, and only a myth. We may not ever be able to say with certainty, from this great temporal remove, how those suckers were actually built.
Well, wait just a minute. How do you think those accounts of the creation of the Pyramids were developed? They were reasoned inductively, based on the available evidence, of course - if your criteria for valid science is that they reason inductively, then archaeology meets that standard easily, as does every other historical science. And your conclusion that the current accounts are possibly "myth" can only have been reached inductively - if archaeologists have no basis for claiming the correctness of their accounts, then you have no basis for suggesting that it's mere "myth". After all, if they can't know how it was done, how on earth can you claim it was a myth, in effect implying that you can separate correct accounts from incorrect accounts? How can you possibly know that? Do you have some special insight that archaeologists lack?