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: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Induction and Science
ohnhai
Member (Idle past 5162 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 61 of 744 (284550)
02-07-2006 8:35 AM
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. Send in the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) to investigate.
Sure, Inductive reasoning often will fail to give the answer you finally submit as ”the truth’. It’s a tool to allow you to ”guess’ the ball park based on a limited set of data. “hmm, the data we have leads me to think that X will be what’s happening. Lets test that . .”
In your example of the Crowe’s and their shoes, it would be reasonable to expect some coloration between Crowe’s and black shoes, as all the Crowe’s you have observed have indeed been wearing black shoes. That gives you a ”valid’ starting point to expand the data further. If in later investigations you learn that it was those three and only those three who have ever worn black shoes then, even though the inductive reasoning was wrong, you have indeed learned a very curious and interesting ”fact’.
To pick holes because inductive reasoning can and does fail to deliver solid, well supported ”facts’ on the first swing of the bat, just goes to show a lack of understanding of what it is and how it is used.
And in the 737 example I would replace the word ”will’ with ”should’, but that’s nitt picking. The fact is one 737 crash doesn’t invalidate the value initial conclusion. After many, many, many thousand successful landings leading to the conclusion that they shouldn’t crash, a crash will lead to a very specific question. “Why?”. If the result of that question is that “the hydraulic hoses on the primary flight controls can perish if repeatedly exposed to certain conditions” then you modify the inductive reasoning conclusion. I,e, “as long as the hoses on the primary flight controls have not perished then all 737s will arrive safely”, and you add regular checks of said hose to the maintenance schedule to make sure they don’t perish. Next time a 737 crashes (inductive reasoning doesn’t exclude the possibility) you repeat the process, and so the list of caveats grows. But with aviation, by the time we get to the 737 we have found a vast number of things that will cause an aircraft to crash, and because of that we check for them. Because we check for them 737s tend not to fall out of the sky on a regular basis, leading to the inductive conclusion that a 737 should reach its destination safely.
This message has been edited by ohnhai, 08-02-2006 03:54 PM

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

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


Message 62 of 744 (284554)
02-07-2006 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by nwr
02-07-2006 8:33 AM


Re: Axiomatic principles
I'm ASSUMING that a scientific law is a generalisation ? By definition a scientific law is a geneal statement. It is meant to apply generally, and not just in the specific instances tested.
Newton's law of gravity is a general rule giving the atttactive force between two masses. Newton himself used celestial mechanics as his main observations. And we are still not certain of the underlying mechanisms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by nwr, posted 02-07-2006 8:33 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by nwr, posted 02-07-2006 9:52 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 63 of 744 (284560)
02-07-2006 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by nwr
02-07-2006 8:33 AM


Re: Axiomatic principles
Which specific observations were generalized by Darwin, in his "Origin of the Species"?
You're not familiar with Darwin's observations at Galapagos, and aboard the Beagle?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by nwr, posted 02-07-2006 8:33 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by nwr, posted 02-07-2006 9:57 PM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 64 of 744 (284798)
02-07-2006 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by PaulK
02-07-2006 8:51 AM


Re: Axiomatic principles
I'm ASSUMING that a scientific law is a generalisation ? By definition a scientific law is a geneal statement.
That a statement is general does not make it a generalization.
There can be general statements that are not generalizations. In fact, I just made such a general statement.
That a statement is a generalization does not make it an inductive generalization. Mathematicians are often generalizing, but they are never making inductive generalizations.
And we are still not certain of the underlying mechanisms.
You may have misunderstood my comment about mechanisms. I do not suggest that scientific laws are mechanisms of reality. There might not even be such mechanisms. I am saying that scientific laws are empirical mechanisms, part of the empirical machinery we use to effectively manage our interactions with reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by PaulK, posted 02-07-2006 8:51 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by crashfrog, posted 02-07-2006 9:57 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied
 Message 72 by PaulK, posted 02-08-2006 2:22 AM 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 65 of 744 (284803)
02-07-2006 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by nwr
02-07-2006 9:52 PM


Re: Axiomatic principles
There can be general statements that are not generalizations. In fact, I just made such a general statement.
Right. You just generalized the first statement from the second, proving Paul's point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by nwr, posted 02-07-2006 9:52 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 66 of 744 (284804)
02-07-2006 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by crashfrog
02-07-2006 9:55 AM


Re: Axiomatic principles
Which specific observations were generalized by Darwin, in his "Origin of the Species"?
You're not familiar with Darwin's observations at Galapagos, and aboard the Beagle?
Darwin's "Origin of the Species" attempted to explain his observations at Galapagos. It was not a generalization of those observations. He did not observe any species originate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by crashfrog, posted 02-07-2006 9:55 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by crashfrog, posted 02-07-2006 10:05 PM nwr has replied

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


Message 67 of 744 (284806)
02-07-2006 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by nwr
02-07-2006 9:57 PM


Re: Axiomatic principles
He did not observe any species originate.
Nor did he explain origins in his book. (It's not a very good title.)
What he did do was generalize the principle of natural selection from the specific instances of selection he observed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by nwr, posted 02-07-2006 9:57 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by nwr, posted 02-07-2006 10:37 PM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 68 of 744 (284816)
02-07-2006 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by crashfrog
02-07-2006 10:05 PM


Re: Axiomatic principles
Nor did he explain origins in his book.
He certainly thought he was accounting for the succession of species. He wasn't explaining origins in the sense of abiogenesis.
What he did do was generalize the principle of natural selection from the specific instances of selection he observed.
As far as I know, the specific instances of selection he observed were of artificial selection, and were not on Galapagos. But his theory was based on far more evidence than that. It just was not an inductive generalization of the particular observations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by crashfrog, posted 02-07-2006 10:05 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by crashfrog, posted 02-07-2006 11:25 PM nwr has replied

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


Message 69 of 744 (284820)
02-07-2006 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by nwr
02-07-2006 10:37 PM


Re: Axiomatic principles
He certainly thought he was accounting for the succession of species.
I'm not familiar with any passage in his book where that's the case. Darwin's model explains the development of form, not the origin of populations. Like I said, it's not a good title, by our modern understanding of "species"; Darwin attempted to explain changes in morphology over time by generalizing from the changes he saw pigeon breeders inflect by selection.
But his theory was based on far more evidence than that.
Right. He generalized from that evidence, as well. When you explain specific evidence via a statement of a universal trend, you're generalizing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by nwr, posted 02-07-2006 10:37 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by nwr, posted 02-08-2006 12:21 AM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 70 of 744 (284821)
02-08-2006 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by crashfrog
02-07-2006 11:25 PM


Re: Axiomatic principles
He certainly thought he was accounting for the succession of species.
I'm not familiar with any passage in his book where that's the case.
He doesn't talk about speciation, as I recall. He probably didn't think it needed discussion. But he does discuss the succession of fossils in the geologic record, so it seems he assumed he was accounting for the succession of species.
When you explain specific evidence via a statement of a universal trend, you're generalizing.
If it is an inductive generalization, then the specific evidence ought to be particular cases of the general statement, and not just something that can be inferred from the general statement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by crashfrog, posted 02-07-2006 11:25 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by crashfrog, posted 02-08-2006 12:29 AM 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 71 of 744 (284824)
02-08-2006 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by nwr
02-08-2006 12:21 AM


Re: Axiomatic principles
He doesn't talk about speciation, as I recall.
The formation of the species concept as one of reproductive isolation postdates Darwin. Indeed, the Mendelian model of discrete genetic inheritance and sexual recombination was unknown at the time, Mendel's paper languishing in an Austrian library.
So, indeed, Darwin doesn't talk about the idea of speciation as an event because the formation of species as a function of population genetics was unknown. As far as Darwin was concerned, he merely needed to explain how organisms became morphologically suited to their environment, because that to him was the origin of what he thought of as "species."
If it is an inductive generalization, then the specific evidence ought to be particular cases of the general statement, and not just something that can be inferred from the general statement.
I guess I don't understand. Darwin inferred universal natural selection by generalization from specific cases of selection, recognizing that the only difference between a breeder plucking out the bad pigeons from the coop and mother nature plucking the less-fit pigeons from the jungle was a matter of who was doing the plucking.
The specific evidence that Darwin generalized selection from were specific cases of selection.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by nwr, posted 02-08-2006 12:21 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 72 of 744 (284834)
02-08-2006 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by nwr
02-07-2006 9:52 PM


Re: Axiomatic principles
Scientific laws are general statements derived from particular instances. That makes them generalisations.
And since you are now saying that your comments on understanding the mechanics were not intended to deny that scientific laws were derived by induction it seems that you have run out of arguments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by nwr, posted 02-07-2006 9:52 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 73 of 744 (285100)
02-08-2006 10:36 PM


How to argue for induction
Based on this thread, there seem to be several principles used to argue for induction.
  1. Make bare assertions (many messages in this thread)
  2. When challenged for evidence (Message 60), ignore the challenge and continue to make bare assertions (Message 62).
  3. Assert, wrongly, that your opponent has conceded (Message 72).

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by crashfrog, posted 02-08-2006 11:11 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied
 Message 75 by PaulK, posted 02-09-2006 2:47 AM nwr has replied

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


Message 74 of 744 (285105)
02-08-2006 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by nwr
02-08-2006 10:36 PM


Re: How to argue for induction
Based on this thread, there seem to be several principles used to argue for induction.
Based on your posts, there seems to be only one two-step process to challenge induction:
1) Get asked a bunch of questions.
2) Never answer any of them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by nwr, posted 02-08-2006 10:36 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 75 of 744 (285117)
02-09-2006 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by nwr
02-08-2006 10:36 PM


Re: How to argue for induction
Oh come off it.
You're ignoring the argument for induction.
You've presented strawman arguments against induction.
The messages you present in your second point are yours and I agree that you do not deal with evidence and rely on bare assertion.
FOr instance to deal in detail with your claims about Newton's law of gravity. Do you really think that Newton's law of Gravity is not a generalisation derived from specific instances ? Do you really think that it has been empirically derived by measuring the attractive force between every possible pairing of masses in this universe ? Or do you think that Newton derived it solely from first principles or more basic laws without direct reference to empirical evidence ?
You manage to write astronomy out of existence by insisting that the first experimental test of Newton's law was the first relevant observation. It;s rather an absurd idea - no scientific law would last for over a century unless it had a solid basis in empirical evidence - whcih must involve induction, since there is no other way to universalise a finite set of observations.
Yiu say that scientiifc laws are derived from machanisms - but neither Newton nor Cavendish knew the meachanisms underlying gravity which are still not understood. And you have offered no way in which these mechanisms of yours could be discovered.
The simple fact is that you don't know what you are talking about. Yet you insist that you must be right and won't hear the arguments against your view.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by nwr, posted 02-08-2006 10:36 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by nwr, posted 02-10-2006 12:04 AM PaulK 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