|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Induction and Science | |||||||||||||||||||
JustinC Member (Idle past 4872 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
quote:Are we maybe equivocating on the term "induction?" When you refer to induction, are you referring to the Baconian view that scientists can just gather a bunch of objective facts about the world and these facts would almost automatically permit a generalization? I like Darwin's quote about this form of induction:
How odd it is that anyone should not see that all observation must be for or against some view if it is to be of any service. -Charles Darwin
I think everyone else here is referring to the hypothetical-deductive (H-D) method or the deductive-nomological (D-N) method. Hemple writes, "[H-D] is inductive in a wider sense, inasmuch as it involves the acceptance of hypothesis on the basis of data that afford no deductively conclusive evidence for it, but lend it only more or less strong 'inductive support', or confirmation." I think this is the form of inductive logic Chiropter (and maybe Modulus) are referring to, and I think it is the form most people mean when they say science relies on inductive logic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Are we maybe equivocating on the term "induction?"
There may well be disagreements about what the term means.
When you refer to induction, are you referring to the Baconian view that scientists can just gather a bunch of objective facts about the world and these facts would almost automatically permit a generalization?
I'm dubious about generalization from just facts. You need an understanding of processes.
I like Darwin's quote about this form of induction:
I think it is pretty clear that Darwin relied on his knowledge of biological processes, most particularly reproductive processes, in forming his theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Why do people still cling to the myth that science uses induction? What are the axiomatic principles of the universe?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
If there were 1000 examples - and if you could show that it was sufficiently unlikely to be due to chance - then it would certainly support the idea that there was something going on. If your result was replicated by other studies then we would havve more confidence, still, in it.
And I have to ask why think that there are no true regularities (what are the "laws" of science but true regularities ?) and how science could work if it did not rely on them ? How could we, for instance, carry out spectrographic studies if we did not know the characteristic absorption and emission spectra of the elements ? If we could not trust even the simplest apparatus ? If every result was just chance, if every confirming replication was just a coincidence how could we do experimental science at all ?a
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: But don't we need to first establish the outcome of the process to obtain that understanding ? And isn't it true that in the case of gravity, for instance, that there are important aspects of the process that we still do not understand ? It seems to me that you are putting the cart before the horse here.a
|
|||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5224 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
nwr,
Yesterday, I bumped into Betty Crowe. She was wearing black shoes. Two weeks ago, I was introduced to John Crowe. I happened to notice that he was wearing black shoes. Bob Crowe was one of my high school friends. As I recall, he wore black shoes.All the Crowes I have observed have been wearing black shoes. Therefore all Crowes are wearing black shoes. Isn't that a fallacy of composition along the lines, this brick is red, therefore the entire wall is red? Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ohnhai Member (Idle past 5190 days) Posts: 649 From: Melbourne, Australia Joined: |
All the Crowes I have observed have been wearing black shoes. Therefore all Crowes are wearing black shoes. This doesn’t work as you think it does. Your statements only refer to the history of those peoples shoe wearing habits and not their current, actual footwear status. Your conclusion that “ . all Crowes are wearing black shoes.” cannot be gleaned from your statements as it specifies a current state of footwear when all the evidence you supplied deals only with past states of footwear. It would be more accurate if you conclude, “Therefore all Crowes are likely to have worn black shoes.” The more Crowes you observe wearing black shoes then the stronger this conclusion becomes.
The above is an example of the "reasoning" principle known as inductive logic. It is absurd. Nobody would jump to the conclusion that all Crowes are wearing black shoes. There is nothing logical about so-called inductive logic. Yes, as you wrote it is absurd because you can’t make that conclusion from those facts. There is no logic in your example because it’s erroneous in its conclusion. So is concluding the invalidity of inductive-logic when you hold up a flawed example. This message has been edited by ohnhai, 06-02-2006 12:02 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Okay. But then you are relying on a different meaning for "induction." The usual account talks of the "logic of induction." If it is logic, then it is operation on symbols. Questions such as "an actual rationale" do not arise if induction is taken as a logic operation. I am using induction to mean
quote: Science doesn't exclusively use induction, it uses induction as one of its tools. Using induction doesn't mean you are being scientific.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Is it not true that any argument that is expressed inductively can also be expressed deductively?
Isn't the difference here simply where an individual is in the process? When going from the specific observation to the more general are we using induction while in the next step, testing the general statement against specifics, are we using deduction? Aren't both forms of reasoning necessary, induction in going from the initial observation to formulating a general rule, and deduction in then testing and verifying that rule? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
crashfrog writes:
There are none, as best I can tell.
What are the axiomatic principles of the universe?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
If there were 1000 examples - and if you could show that it was sufficiently unlikely to be due to chance - then it would certainly support the idea that there was something going on.
Sure. And we would investigate that, in an attempt to find a cause. We would not just assert a generalization as truth.
And I have to ask why think that there are no true regularities (what are the "laws" of science but true regularities ?) and how science could work if it did not rely on them ?
Of course this depends on what one means by "regularity." The word, based on its root, ought to mean "rule following". I am saying that nature is not obliged to follow any rules. The universe is not uniformly homogeneous stuff. It is lumpy. If the world were uniformly homogeneous, that would be strong evidence of regularity. It's lumpiness is evidence of irregularity. Given a lumpy world, it is up to us to make some kind of sense of that world. So we invent rules. But they are not rules that the world follows. They are rules that we follow in making sense of the world. Those rules, human inventions, are what we call "scientific laws". Take Newton's famous laws of motion. Prior to the investigations of Galileo and Newton there was no concept of mass. What we currently call "mass" and what we currently call "weight" were at one time merged into a single broad concept. Similarly, the ancient folk concept of force was different from Newton's concept of force. Newton introduced the new concept of mass, changed the concept of force, used his calculus to precisely define acceleration. Newton's laws were very much about defining and using these concepts. The laws and concepts together were an invention, a new way of slicing up the world so as to make better predictions. The rules are rules for scientists to follow, not rules that nature is required to follow. "F=ma" was pretty much the definition of how to measure mass, and necessarily true by virtue of being a definition.
How could we, for instance, carry out spectrographic studies if we did not know the characteristic absorption and emission spectra of the elements ?
An interesting example. We use these studies to identify elements present on stars. To the best of my knowledge, we have not visited a single star to verify this. If this use is an induction, then it is a generalization based on zero observations.
If we could not trust even the simplest apparatus ?
If our laws arose by induction, then we could not trust the apparatus. It is because our laws are part of our inventions, that we know we can trust them. The traditional view is that we start with minute facts, and use induction to form more general laws. I am saying that, for the most part, we start with general laws as accounts of empirical methodology, and we use those to slice up the world into smaller piece so as to allow the collection of the minute facts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
But don't we need to first establish the outcome of the process to obtain that understanding ?
According to textbook induction, one starts with facts and jumps to generalizations as conclusions. Textbook induction ignores the use of of experimentation for critical tests of theories. Textbook induction presupposes that all concepts exist a priori, and one gets facts by simple observation. It ignores the fact that scientific investigation leads to new concepts, and many of the laws have to do with the newly invented concepts. Textbook induction presupposes that observation is simple. It ignores the difficulty of measurement. It ignores the extent to which new concepts and new laws come from inventing new measuring methods.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
If induction was no good then why would you ever think that a repeated observation was likely to indicate something worthy of further study ?
As for spectrogtaphy we do have a theoretical understanding, now of how it works. But we didn't always have that and I would like to know how we could ever have worked out an understanding without accepting that the data was significant and indicated a genuine regularity.n
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Isn't that a fallacy of composition along the lines, this brick is red, therefore the entire wall is red?
That's a pretty good description of what is wrong with textbook induction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
I am using induction to mean
I am arguing that it is often the other way around. That is, we start with general principles, and use those to enable us to find particular facts. The general principle known as Ohm's law (V=IR) is built into most standard electrical measuring equipment to make it possible for us to measure electrical quantities. Ohm's law itself is pretty much true by definition, not assumed true as a result of inductive inference.
quote:
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024