Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Induction and Science
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 46 of 744 (284176)
02-05-2006 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by nwr
02-05-2006 3:42 PM


Yes, inductive reasoning stops at the point where we have made a generalisation. But if induction did not work then we wouldn't even get that far. All the other reaoning you mention is elaboration, not a denial of the validity of induction as a method of examinming empirical data.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by nwr, posted 02-05-2006 3:42 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by nwr, posted 02-05-2006 4:09 PM PaulK has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 47 of 744 (284177)
02-05-2006 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by jar
02-05-2006 2:19 PM


Re: General questions
Is it not true that any argument that is expressed inductively can also be expressed deductively?
There is a big difference in what is taken to be already known and what is taken to be unknown.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by jar, posted 02-05-2006 2:19 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 48 of 744 (284181)
02-05-2006 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by PaulK
02-05-2006 3:51 PM


All the other reaoning you mention is elaboration, not a denial of the validity of induction as a method of examinming empirical data.
"Validity" implies that induction leads to truth. That's what I am questioning.
Observed patterns lead to interesting ideas that can be further investigated. Without additional investigation, one cannot take an observed pattern as truth (as something that will always occur).
All Boeing 737 passenger aircraft have arrived safely at their destination. By induction, all such aircraft will arrive safely. Oops, one of them crashed, so the induction has failed. Send in the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) to investigate.
We actually learn a lot from work by groups such as the NTSB. We make scientific advances by investigating apparent induction failures. In this case nobody would have really believed the 737 induction anyway, because there were known risks. We can have generalized statements which we know to be false, even if a good approximation. We improve our science by the extra specialization that comes from investigating the failure of these generalized statements.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by PaulK, posted 02-05-2006 3:51 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by PaulK, posted 02-05-2006 4:17 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied
 Message 50 by Modulous, posted 02-05-2006 4:24 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied
 Message 61 by ohnhai, posted 02-07-2006 8:35 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 49 of 744 (284184)
02-05-2006 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by nwr
02-05-2006 4:09 PM


I know what you are questioning. I am pointing out that you are also implicitly accepting it. If inducton were not a good way to identify patterns - regularities underlying phenonomena - then it would not be employed to find them.
Your examples fail to understand that induction does not claim absolute reliability, nor that the reliability depends on taking an adequate sample, nor that induction is not to be taken as automatically overriding inferences made by other means, or even other inductive reasoning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by nwr, posted 02-05-2006 4:09 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 50 of 744 (284187)
02-05-2006 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by nwr
02-05-2006 4:09 PM


All Boeing 737 passenger aircraft have arrived safely at their destination. By induction, all such aircraft will arrive safely. Oops, one of them crashed, so the induction has failed.
Yes, the hypothesis that aircraft will arrive safely has been falsified. It was induction, but it was not scientific induction.
We actually learn a lot from work by groups such as the NTSB. We make scientific advances by investigating apparent induction failures.
We find that there was a hairline fracture in the jet engine. We know by experiment that hairline fractures can lead to weaknesses in jet engines.
We make the inductive leap that the experiments on jet engines are applicable to the jet engine on the plane that crashed. (We derive a general principle from particular facts). The inductive leap has a reasoned argument behind making it. This is science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by nwr, posted 02-05-2006 4:09 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 51 of 744 (284190)
02-05-2006 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by nwr
02-05-2006 3:50 PM


Re: Induction is not science, science is not induction
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.
Indeed, we can apply science to find particular facts. Scientific theories are massively inductive in nature...they are the epitome of deriving general principles from particular facts.
The frequency of it being the other way around is not important just yet, the concession that some frequency of induction is involved in science is a good start.
This message has been edited by Modulous, Sun, 05-February-2006 09:33 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by nwr, posted 02-05-2006 3:50 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 52 of 744 (284268)
02-05-2006 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by nwr
02-05-2006 2:48 PM


Re: Axiomatic principles
There are none, as best I can tell.
So then, deduction is not possible on the universe.
And you're asking why we use induction in science? My question to you is, what else is left?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by nwr, posted 02-05-2006 2:48 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by nwr, posted 02-05-2006 9:09 PM crashfrog has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 53 of 744 (284269)
02-05-2006 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by crashfrog
02-05-2006 9:03 PM


Re: Axiomatic principles
We invent our own axiom systems that fit reasonably well, and call them "scientific laws". They don't have to be axiomatic principles of the universe. They only have to fit, in the sense that we can use our axioms (scientific laws) to do useful things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by crashfrog, posted 02-05-2006 9:03 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by crashfrog, posted 02-05-2006 11:29 PM nwr has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 54 of 744 (284283)
02-05-2006 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by nwr
02-05-2006 9:09 PM


Re: Axiomatic principles
We invent our own axiom systems that fit reasonably well
How do we do that? At random?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by nwr, posted 02-05-2006 9:09 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by nwr, posted 02-05-2006 11:41 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 55 of 744 (284287)
02-05-2006 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by crashfrog
02-05-2006 11:29 PM


Re: Axiomatic principles
How do we do that? At random?
No, but there is a trial-and-error component.
Suppose you want to repair Notre Dame cathedral. If you can find the original architect's blueprints, you have your axioms. Failing that, you would usually build a scaffolding around the building, and work from there. The structure of the scaffolding is a kind of axiom system that approximates the cathedral.
I'm suggesting that scientific laws are the scaffolding we build to approximate the world.
Scientific change is much like evolution. Scientific theories change, usually by small increments. There is a trial and error phase, where new ideas are tested -- that's a bit like mutation. At some stages, we get the sudden change, similar to punctuated equilibrium. That's when a bunch of previously tested alternative ideas are put together in a coherent package to replace the old scaffolding with a better fitting one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by crashfrog, posted 02-05-2006 11:29 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by PaulK, posted 02-06-2006 2:02 AM nwr has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 56 of 744 (284297)
02-06-2006 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by nwr
02-05-2006 11:41 PM


Re: Axiomatic principles
Experiments typically only give individual instances or at best only collections of individual instances. In other words by suggesting that experiment can validate a proposed natural law you are endorsing inductive reasoning.t

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by nwr, posted 02-05-2006 11:41 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by crashfrog, posted 02-06-2006 9:39 AM PaulK has not replied
 Message 58 by nwr, posted 02-06-2006 9:24 PM PaulK has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 57 of 744 (284359)
02-06-2006 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by PaulK
02-06-2006 2:02 AM


Re: Axiomatic principles
Yeah, exactly. That's really been my point all along, but NWR seems to be very keen to describe inductive reasoning all the while refusing to label it as such.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by PaulK, posted 02-06-2006 2:02 AM PaulK has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 58 of 744 (284513)
02-06-2006 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by PaulK
02-06-2006 2:02 AM


Re: Axiomatic principles
Experiments typically only give individual instances or at best only collections of individual instances.
Are you suggesting that there are problems when the mechanic tests the tuning of your car?
In other words by suggesting that experiment can validate a proposed natural law you are endorsing inductive reasoning.
Or are you saying that testing the tuning of your car amounts to induction?
If that's your point, then okay. But then what you mean by "induction" is very different from what is described in the literature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by PaulK, posted 02-06-2006 2:02 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by PaulK, posted 02-07-2006 2:19 AM nwr has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 59 of 744 (284528)
02-07-2006 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by nwr
02-06-2006 9:24 PM


Re: Axiomatic principles
Let's try again. Generalising from collections of individual instances is induction. Experimental results are collectiosn of individual instances. The only way they can validate a supposed "law" is through induction.
The trial-and-error aspect can track down which aspects of the conditions are important, but that, too fits within the inductive method (indeed the only way to conclude that a condition is important is through inductive reasoning).
Your comments on a mechnaic adjusting timing are problematic for two reasons. Firstly we are talking about the validation of a proposed scientific "law" - which the mechanic is not doing. Secondly it is you, not I. that is suggesting that induction dows not work. Thus if the mechanic were using induction it is your views that would imply that there was a problem - not mine as you suggest..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by nwr, posted 02-06-2006 9:24 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by nwr, posted 02-07-2006 8:33 AM PaulK has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 60 of 744 (284549)
02-07-2006 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by PaulK
02-07-2006 2:19 AM


Re: Axiomatic principles
Let's try again. Generalising from collections of individual instances is induction.
Great. We finally have something we can agree upon.
Experimental results are collectiosn of individual instances.
Another agreement. That's two agreements in one message. We are really making progress.
The only way they can validate a supposed "law" is through induction.
Oops! You just broke the chain of agreement.
You are assuming that a scientific law is a generalization. That's precisely where our disagreement lies.
Which specific observations did Newton's law of gravity generalize? As far as I can tell, the first specific observation, of which it could possibly be said to be a generalization, was the measurement made by Cavendish in 1798. That's 111 years after Newton proposed his law of gravity.
Which specific observations were generalized by Ohm's law, V=IR? To observe a specific instance you would have to already know the resistance R, but there was no way of determining R without presupposing V=IR.
Which specific observations were generalized by Darwin, in his "Origin of the Species"? As the creationists are fond of reminding us, Darwin had observed zero instances of an origin of a species.
Your comments on a mechnaic adjusting timing are problematic for two reasons.
It was intended to be problematic for the view you expressed in Message 56, that testing shows induction is being used.
Firstly we are talking about the validation of a proposed scientific "law" - which the mechanic is not doing.
It is an example of testing a mechanism. I'm arguing that scientific laws are parts of mechanisms, or proposed mechanisms, and are not generalizations.
Secondly it is you, not I. that is suggesting that induction dows not work. Thus if the mechanic were using induction it is your views that would imply that there was a problem - not mine as you suggest..
Again, not a problem for me. I am not suggesting that the mechanic is using induction. I was using the example to question your apparent view that testing of a mechanism is an instance of induction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by PaulK, posted 02-07-2006 2:19 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by PaulK, posted 02-07-2006 8:51 AM nwr has replied
 Message 63 by crashfrog, posted 02-07-2006 9:55 AM nwr 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