Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What we must accept if we accept evolution Part 2
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 241 of 301 (283907)
02-04-2006 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by nwr
02-04-2006 10:53 AM


Induction
Induction is not valid. Fortunately, science does not require any such assumption.
What? Are you sure you mean that. Induction plays a large role in science, that is why theories are tentative. As wiki says:
All observed crows are black
tentative conclusion: all crows are black.
Our crows are black theory can be falsified at any time by the observation of a non-black crow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by nwr, posted 02-04-2006 10:53 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by nwr, posted 02-04-2006 2:08 PM Modulous has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 242 of 301 (283912)
02-04-2006 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Faith
02-04-2006 1:25 PM


Validity of induction
You mean it's not valid AT ALL, or in this particular context, or what?
I mean "not valid at all."
Of course, it depends on what you mean by "induction." However, what is usually described as induction is not valid at all.
Induction is part of a pseudo-scientific theory that comes from philosophy. It has been falsified many times. However, philosophers who hold that falsificationism is correct still cling to induction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Faith, posted 02-04-2006 1:25 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Faith, posted 02-04-2006 2:08 PM nwr has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 243 of 301 (283915)
02-04-2006 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Funkaloyd
02-01-2006 7:30 PM


Re: Is the concept of a "Fall" not a viable excuse?
I normally see literalism as a synonym of creationism and fundamentalism, but you're right. The same goes for the identification of the serpent as Satan; it doesn't follow from a literal reading, but is instead added on.
No, his identity is REVEALED, not "added on," revealed in the Book of Revelation:
quote:
Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
Rev 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Funkaloyd, posted 02-01-2006 7:30 PM Funkaloyd has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by ramoss, posted 02-05-2006 11:28 AM Faith has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 244 of 301 (283916)
02-04-2006 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by Modulous
02-04-2006 1:38 PM


Re: Induction
Induction plays a large role in science, that is why theories are tentative.
It depends on what you mean by induction. As it is usually described, induction plays no role at all in science.
All observed crows are black
tentative conclusion: all crows are black.
Are you (or is wiki) claiming that no albino crow has ever been observed? That would surely be surprising and worthy of investigation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Modulous, posted 02-04-2006 1:38 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by NosyNed, posted 02-04-2006 2:19 PM nwr has not replied
 Message 247 by Modulous, posted 02-04-2006 2:29 PM nwr has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 245 of 301 (283917)
02-04-2006 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by nwr
02-04-2006 2:03 PM


Re: Validity of induction
I have to see how you answer Modulous then.
And I have to ask, so that leaves only deduction as a valid logical method? So you have to start with a theory you think up and then test it and that's the only valid method? But I would think induction could be a way to ARRIVE AT a theory that you could then test.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by nwr, posted 02-04-2006 2:03 PM nwr has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 246 of 301 (283920)
02-04-2006 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by nwr
02-04-2006 2:08 PM


Induction in Science
I disagree nwr. I think Faith is right that induction can be a source of 'inspiration' for a hypothosis.
In fact, (I'm getting neck stuck out a bit here) I'd say there is a lot of induction in science. That is one reason for the continued testing.
Crows are black; seen any other colors? Opps! our hypothosis is wrong. Let's rephrase*.
The overwhelmingly common color for Crows is black. Crows of other colors are subject to sexual and natural selection that means they only appear as random mutations. Now we can test this hypothosis too.
If our hypothosis holds up: So far ALL life forms on the planet share the same genetic base -- there was only one common ancestor to them all. I guess we could develop some deductive reasons why this had to be but I think we have concluded this based on induction and, so far, it holds up.
( * I can't help myself; ICR or AIG would in a similar situtation decide that the bird you found isn't a "true" crow. )
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-04-2006 02:21 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by nwr, posted 02-04-2006 2:08 PM nwr has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 247 of 301 (283924)
02-04-2006 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by nwr
02-04-2006 2:08 PM


Re: Induction
Induction: The process of deriving general principles from particular facts or instances.
Whenever I let go of my pen, it falls.
My pen will always fall when I let go of it
This will be falsified if my pen doesn't fall at any time that I drop it.
Did Darwin inspect every single organism to conclude that they are share a common ancestor? Have we inspected every organism today?
Are you (or is wiki) claiming that no albino crow has ever been observed? That would surely be surprising and worthy of investigation.
Must you take it so literally? If I was to show you the classic: All red cars are fast, my car is red, therefore my car is fast syllogism you would say "Not all cars are red!"
Of course, not all crows are black, it has been falsified already. That's science. Make a general statement based on what we know now, but say "observation x will falsify this theory".
Science is always making inductions, constantly...and its perfectly valid. One can never know a certainty from induction. All inductive conclusions are tentative. As long as we are always aware that induction is flawed, and maintain no absolute certainties (ie tentativity), then induction is a valid way to come to tentative conclusions.
This message has been edited by Modulous, Sat, 04-February-2006 07:31 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by nwr, posted 02-04-2006 2:08 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by nwr, posted 02-04-2006 2:48 PM Modulous has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 248 of 301 (283933)
02-04-2006 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Modulous
02-04-2006 2:29 PM


Please move OT induction discussion to the appropriate thread
Induction: The process of deriving general principles from particular facts or instances.
I have started a new topic at Induction and Science. Let's move this discussion there, to avoid derailing this current thread.
Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Modulous, posted 02-04-2006 2:29 PM Modulous has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 249 of 301 (283976)
02-04-2006 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by nwr
02-04-2006 10:53 AM


Re: on Belief
What is questionable about that? We are near the end of the second thread on this topic, and you still haven't explained it.
I have explained it on various occasions.
Let us examine the two senses of the word "because." One can mean it in a causal sense, or one can mean it in a logical sense (ground/consequent).
He died of cancer because he smoked cigarettes. (causal)
He must be the murderer, because, as we have already proved, he was the only one in the victim's room that night. (ground/consequent)
These different senses do not go together.
"'You hold that belief because you are a man,' said the woman tartly."
The woman is saying that the man's beliefs are CAUSED (by male hormones, say), and therefore his conclusion was not arrived at logically and can be dismissed. His belief could only be true accidentally. It is not derived from a logical progession, but was caused.
All our beliefs are physically caused, since there is nothing but the physical; therefore, they are true only accidentally.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 02-04-2006 04:22 PM
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 02-04-2006 04:23 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by nwr, posted 02-04-2006 10:53 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Faith, posted 02-04-2006 6:02 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 252 by PaulK, posted 02-04-2006 6:28 PM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 253 by nwr, posted 02-04-2006 7:40 PM robinrohan has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 250 of 301 (283978)
02-04-2006 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by robinrohan
02-04-2006 5:21 PM


Re: on Belief
Usually you are so clear I'm surprised I can't figure out what you are saying about the physical causation of mind/thoughts etc. You've said it many times but I'm still not getting it. I get the two senses of "because" but I don't get your overall point.
All our beliefs are physically caused, since there is nothing but the physical; therefore, they are true only accidentally.
I think I get the logical point, but I can't imagine something being true "only accidentally" -- if it's true it's true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by robinrohan, posted 02-04-2006 5:21 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by robinrohan, posted 02-04-2006 6:19 PM Faith has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 251 of 301 (283982)
02-04-2006 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by Faith
02-04-2006 6:02 PM


Re: on Belief
I think I get the logical point, but I can't imagine something being true "only accidentally" -- if it's true it's true.
It's like the conclusion of a syllogism, which might be true but not valid:
All fathers are males.
George W. Bush is a male.
Therefore, George W. Bush is a father.
Goerge W. Bush is in fact a father, but the logic of the syllogism is invalid. The conclusion is true accidentally.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Faith, posted 02-04-2006 6:02 PM Faith has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 252 of 301 (283984)
02-04-2006 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by robinrohan
02-04-2006 5:21 PM


Re: on Belief
quote:
All our beliefs are physically caused, since there is nothing but the physical; therefore, they are true only accidentally.
In an obligatory nod to the topic I point out (again) that evolution does not require that nothing exists but the physical.
As for the quoted statement, it is a clear non-sequitur. There is no basis for the unstated assumption that a physical entity cannot embody reliable belief-formation mechanisms. j

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by robinrohan, posted 02-04-2006 5:21 PM robinrohan has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 253 of 301 (284006)
02-04-2006 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by robinrohan
02-04-2006 5:21 PM


Re: on Belief
All our beliefs are physically caused, since there is nothing but the physical; therefore, they are true only accidentally.
Sigh!
Your previous statement was "Our logic becomes especially questionable if our world is completely physical." There is a big difference between "our world is completely physical" and "there is nothing but the physical". The number 5 is abstract, so not physical
There are legitimate questions about whether there are such things as beliefs. Maybe "belief" is a term in an inadequate theory of mind, and doesn't really reference anything.
Even ignoring that, you are saying about beliefs "therefore, they are true only accidentally." You still have not explained this. Why do you claim that physical causation must result in beliefs being accidental?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by robinrohan, posted 02-04-2006 5:21 PM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by Faith, posted 02-04-2006 7:54 PM nwr has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 254 of 301 (284011)
02-04-2006 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by nwr
02-04-2006 7:40 PM


Re: on Belief
Why do you claim that physical causation must result in beliefs being accidental?
{ABE: It isn't "beliefs" that are accidental, but anything we think is true happening in fact to BE true}
This much I think I get: Because there is no actual self or *I* that is the generator of the idea, thought, belief. It's all an illusion. Beliefs, thoughts, mind, sense of self, all are just part of this automaton that is merely an epiphenomenon of the physical entity that came about by the purely physical processes of evolution. These patterns were selected by physical processes to enhance survival. That makes all the thought processes "automatic" in a sense, or preprogrammed in a sense, rather than intended. Without intention any correspondence they may have with actual fact or truth is purely accidental. I think.
This message has been edited by Faith, 02-04-2006 08:15 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by nwr, posted 02-04-2006 7:40 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Omnivorous, posted 02-04-2006 8:30 PM Faith has replied
 Message 257 by nwr, posted 02-04-2006 9:10 PM Faith has replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3973
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 255 of 301 (284026)
02-04-2006 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Faith
02-04-2006 7:54 PM


Re: on Belief
Beliefs, thoughts, mind, sense of self, all are just part of this automaton that is merely an epiphenomenon of the physical entity that came about by the purely physical processes of evolution. These patterns were selected by physical processes to enhance survival. That makes all the thought processes "automatic" in a sense, or preprogrammed in a sense, rather than intended. Without intention any correspondence they may have with actual fact or truth is purely accidental. I think.
How could a process that only accidentally yielded correspondences with truth enhance survival? Survival is enchanced by accuracy, and evolution has produced processes which maximize the probability of accurate thoughts. The brains that produced inaccurate thoughts suffered the consequences and produced fewer to no descendants. Evolution produced the engine of thought, not the thoughts themselves.
This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 02-04-2006 08:30 PM

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Faith, posted 02-04-2006 7:54 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Faith, posted 02-04-2006 8:35 PM Omnivorous has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024