Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Induction and Science
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 76 of 744 (285376)
02-10-2006 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by PaulK
02-09-2006 2:47 AM


Re: How to argue for induction
You're ignoring the argument for induction.
I haven't seen any persuasive argument.
You've presented strawman arguments against induction.
That you consider it a strawman does not make it so. There is a substantial literature on problems with induction. Hume said there was no basis in reason. Goodman gave us the "grue" problem. Hempel gave us his raven paradox. Carnap, when studying degree of confirmation, concluded that for laws of physics the degree of confirmation is zero. Both Kuhn and Feyerabend made strong cases against traditional induction-based philosophy of science.
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.
False. My second point references two messages. One was by me, and the other by you.
Do you really think that Newton's law of Gravity is not a generalisation derived from specific instances ?
Yes.
Do you really think that it has been empirically derived by measuring the attractive force between every possible pairing of masses in this universe ?
Of course not. The charge is ridiculous. I have not suggested such a thing.
Or do you think that Newton derived it solely from first principles or more basic laws without direct reference to empirical evidence ?
That's like asking "when did you stop beating your mother?".
Why ask such loaded questions?
You manage to write astronomy out of existence by insisting that the first experimental test of Newton's law was the first relevant observation.
Dishonest. That's a gross distortion of what I wrote.
It;s rather an absurd idea - no scientific law would last for over a century unless it had a solid basis in empirical evidence - ...
Since it is so obviously absurd, why do you falsely accuse me of that absurdity?
...- whcih must involve induction, since there is no other way to universalise a finite set of observations.
We finally get to it. An actual argument for induction. This is about the only actual argument that I ever hear.
It is, of course, argument from ignorance.
How scientific laws are developed ought to be a topic of interest, worthy of investigation.
It seems that, at present, anybody who questions whether induction is the method is attacked by inductionists, using arguments similar to those we hear from creationists. We see bare assertions, with no actual evidence. There is just the argument from ignorance. It is induction-of-the-gaps. Induction-did-it.
What's wrong with saying that you don't know how laws are formed? At least that leaves it as an open subject.
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.
You said much the same in Message 62. You have misunderstood my comment on mechanisms. I corrected that in Message 64. Are you actually reading what I post?
The simple fact is that you don't know what you are talking about.
The obvious fact is that you don't know what I am talking about. You might try reading more carefully.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by PaulK, posted 02-09-2006 2:47 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by PaulK, posted 02-10-2006 2:53 AM nwr has replied

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


Message 77 of 744 (285407)
02-10-2006 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by nwr
02-10-2006 12:04 AM


Re: How to argue for induction
You claim that your examples are not strawmen. Alright. Can you show me an example of an actual use of induction, which is considered to be valid and useful which uses a mere two observations ?
If not then your original example is a strawman.
I also point out that youir own claims confirm that induction WAS heavily used in science at the point they were written:
quote:
Carnap, when studying degree of confirmation, concluded that for laws of physics the degree of confirmation is zero. Both Kuhn and Feyerabend made strong cases against traditional induction-based philosophy of science.
By the way you can't usefully invoke Hume or Goodman either since they don't refer to any difference in our positions. I don't and never have claimed that induction is a full equal of deduction.
[quote] qsDo you really think that Newton's law of Gravity is not a generalisation derived from specific instances ?[/qs] Yes. [/quote]
OK. I also note that you think it absurd that he worked it out by doing all the measurements required to provide direct empirical proof. or that he arrived at it through sound deductive arguments. But you don't say how he did work it out.
IN Message 60 you claim that
quote:
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.
You now say that it is absurd to think that Cavendish's observation was the first and thus I should not mention that you said what you said.
As to the rest it seems that you are the one arguing like a creationist. You don't offer any reasonable allternative to induction. You just insist that Newton must have used some other methood - while apparently not even being aware of Newton's use of astronomical data or indeed of any signfiicant data at all.
Just like you insist that the problem reproted by Hume and Goodman must have been solved and that there must be a valid method of universalising a finite set of observations. Or at least one better thna induction
As for your mechanic argument the real problem is that you have changed your argument. First you stated that scientific "laws" were based on known processes (which is true of some, but these rely on lower level "laws", which fails to help your position). Now you argue that we can universalise the results of a set of trial and error tests without using induction. OK, how do you do it ? Or is it just that you assume that there must be a way because your argument needs one ??

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by nwr, posted 02-10-2006 12:04 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by nwr, posted 02-10-2006 11:53 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 78 of 744 (285452)
02-10-2006 9:16 AM


Reasoning
Deductive reasoning: If the premises are true then conclusion is true.
Inductive reasoning: If the premises are true, the conclusion follows with some degree of probability.
Abductive reasoning: Inference to the best explanation (aka science).
Charles S. Peirce writes:
Abduction having suggested a theory, we employ deduction to deduce from that ideal theory a promiscuous variety of consequences to the effect that if we perform certain acts, we shall find ourselves confronted with certain experiences. We then proceed to try these experiments, and if the predictions of the theory are verified, we have a proportionate confidence that the experiments that remain to be tried will confirm the theory [Peirce previously refers to this as induction]. I say that these three are the only elementary modes of reasoning there are.
I think that basically sums up what I've been trying to say on this thread. Science uses induction, but not exclusively, it uses other tools also.

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by nwr, posted 02-10-2006 11:59 PM Modulous has replied

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


Message 79 of 744 (285780)
02-10-2006 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by PaulK
02-10-2006 2:53 AM


Re: How to argue for induction
You claim that your examples are not strawmen. Alright. Can you show me an example of an actual use of induction, which is considered to be valid and useful which uses a mere two observations ?
Psychologists often claim that people make inductions on only one or two observations.
If not then your original example is a strawman.
That's a bit silly. My example used three observations. I could have expanded that. But doing so would only make it tedious. The point would still be there.
It was a thought experiment. Most of the published literature on induction is in the form of thought experiments.
I also point out that youir own claims confirm that induction WAS heavily used in science at the point they were written:
quote:
Carnap, when studying degree of confirmation, concluded that for laws of physics the degree of confirmation is zero. Both Kuhn and Feyerabend made strong cases against traditional induction-based philosophy of science.
It isn't at all obvious why you think that would indicate induction was heavily used in science. Carnap was a philosopher, not a scientist.
By the way you can't usefully invoke Hume or Goodman either since they don't refer to any difference in our positions. I don't and never have claimed that induction is a full equal of deduction.
That's a reasonable comment on Hume. It isn't so obvious that it applies to Goodman's "grue" problem.
IN Message 60 you claim that
quote:
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.
You now say that it is absurd to think that Cavendish's observation was the first and thus I should not mention that you said what you said.
I really don't know why you see a contradiction there. But I guess I will have to explain it to you.
Among other things, Kepler's laws were part of the evidence Newton used. My statement about Cavendish's observation was with respect to specific observations of which the law of gravity could be considered a generalization. Kepler's laws are not such specific observations. The observations that Kepler had used were also not specific instances of the law of gravity.
It is very common, that the evidence that leads to a scientific law is not direct evidence such as could be considered specific instances of what the law asserts. Your own definition of induction from Message 59 rules out that induction is being used in such cases.
You don't offer any reasonable allternative to induction.
I did offer an alternative in a brief comment that I could have expanded if you had asked.
Insults are unwarranted. You should have read what I wrote, instead of jumping to conclusions.
Just like you insist that the problem reproted by Hume and Goodman must have been solved and that there must be a valid method of universalising a finite set of observations.
I have not said any of those things. Can you stop making these false allegations.
As for your mechanic argument the real problem is that you have changed your argument.
No I haven't. Rather, you have changed which unwarranted conclusions that you have jumped to.
Now you argue that we can universalise the results of a set of trial and error tests without using induction.
No, I have never said that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by PaulK, posted 02-10-2006 2:53 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by PaulK, posted 02-11-2006 3:27 AM nwr has replied

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


Message 80 of 744 (285782)
02-10-2006 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Modulous
02-10-2006 9:16 AM


Re: Reasoning
Abductive reasoning: Inference to the best explanation (aka science).
At first glance, abductive reasoning seems to better describe what science does. However as far as I can tell
  • no inference procedure is given;
  • there is no guarantee that there is a best explanation;
  • even if there is a best explanation, that might not be the one that science comes up with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Modulous, posted 02-10-2006 9:16 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Modulous, posted 02-11-2006 5:49 AM nwr has replied

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


Message 81 of 744 (285792)
02-11-2006 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by nwr
02-10-2006 11:53 PM


Re: How to argue for induction
I asked you for an example of an inductive arguemnt considered to be valid based on only two observations. That psychologists claim that people often make inductions on two examples does not meet tht criterion. People often fall into fallacious thinking - the "gambler's fallacy" is one example. Thus even if your unreferenced claim is true you have not given any evidence that such examples are considered valid.
Your example specifically relied on using far too few observations. To say that if you had used more it ould have still worked ay best begs the question.
To continue, you ask how a quote which refers too "the traditional induction-based philosophy of science" can mean that science used induction heavily - when the context is scientific methodology. Well i is tellign you that the philosophy of science was heabily based on scientific use of nduction and since the philosphy shoucld reflect the practice the conclusion is obvious. You also might want to try explaining Carnap's statement before assuming that it has nothing to do with induction, too.
I have no idea why you consider my comment on Goodman's "grue" problem to be inadequate. All it does is point out a potential problem with induction. Since I accept that induction is fallible then why should I be especially concerned with it ?
Your comment on Kepler's laws also shows a problem with your view. If Kepler's laws are not based on empricial observations then they do not help your case. If they are then they are based on specific instances and they still do not help your case. Also, Newton also used other specific observations - Galileos' experiemnts with projectiles - as a basis for his work.
Your attitude to "insults" is also completely unwrothy of someone in a moderator posiiton. You started this subtrhead by being insulting. But now you insist that iy is "unwarranted" for anyone ot make statements you interpret as "insultinh". Which includes pointing out the impliucatiosn of your arguents.
Remember it is your assertion that science uses a method superior to induction. In that context you raised the arguments of Hume and Goodman - as arguments agaisnt induction. If your proposed methodology suffers from the same flaws then Hume and Goodman are irrelevant to the discussion. Thus you gave implicitly claimed to have a method which excapes those problems.
The rest of your claims of "misrepresentation" similarly fail.
If you actually intend to have a serious discussion then I suggest that you actually present your methodology and show how it removes the need for induction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by nwr, posted 02-10-2006 11:53 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by nwr, posted 02-12-2006 12:45 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 82 of 744 (285802)
02-11-2006 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by nwr
02-10-2006 11:59 PM


Re: Reasoning
At first glance, abductive reasoning seems to better describe what science does. However as far as I can tell
* no inference procedure is given;
* there is no guarantee that there is a best explanation;
* even if there is a best explanation, that might not be the one that science comes up with.
I think that the reasoning process isn't necessarily a rigidly logical one, and that some 'creativity' is there. As for the second two, I believe you've summed up tentativity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by nwr, posted 02-10-2006 11:59 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by nwr, posted 02-12-2006 12:46 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 83 of 744 (285856)
02-11-2006 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nwr
02-04-2006 2:36 PM


Induction???
I would rather call this as Deduction. In this case, there are 3 different people perhaps from the same family. They all wore black shoes. Deduction will fit in here better than induction.
If this has to be induction, then this could follow other queries like: Why did they wear Black Shoes? What is special about the black color? One of them must be wearing women's shoes etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nwr, posted 02-04-2006 2:36 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by crashfrog, posted 02-11-2006 5:07 PM inkorrekt has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 84 of 744 (285858)
02-11-2006 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by inkorrekt
02-11-2006 5:04 PM


Re: Induction???
I would rather call this as Deduction. In this case, there are 3 different people perhaps from the same family. They all wore black shoes. Deduction will fit in here better than induction.
Induction is generalization of universal principles from specific cases. Deduction is anticipating specific cases by application of general principles.
Therefore, this is induction, not deduction. Deduction has limited use in science and is essentially limited to the test of theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by inkorrekt, posted 02-11-2006 5:04 PM inkorrekt has not replied

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


Message 85 of 744 (285928)
02-12-2006 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by PaulK
02-11-2006 3:27 AM


Re: How to argue for induction
I asked you for an example of an inductive arguemnt considered to be valid based on only two observations.
I am arguing against induction. There is no point in repeatedly asking me for an example of a valid induction when I am skeptical that there are any.
And apparently you still are unable to count to three.
Your example specifically relied on using far too few observations.
The number of observations was not the point.
If you thought that disqualified my example, you could have just said so, as some others did.
Well i is tellign you that the philosophy of science was heabily based on scientific use of nduction and since the philosphy shoucld reflect the practice the conclusion is obvious.
That might be a fair conclusion if the literature on philosophy of science actually had clear evidence of induction being used.
If you actually intend to have a serious discussion then I suggest that you actually present your methodology and show how it removes the need for induction.
It would be pointless. You have been consistently failing to respond to the parts of my posts that were relevant to such a discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by PaulK, posted 02-11-2006 3:27 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by PaulK, posted 02-12-2006 3:07 AM nwr has replied

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


Message 86 of 744 (285929)
02-12-2006 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Modulous
02-11-2006 5:49 AM


Re: Reasoning
I think that the reasoning process isn't necessarily a rigidly logical one, and that some 'creativity' is there.
I agree with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Modulous, posted 02-11-2006 5:49 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 87 of 744 (285933)
02-12-2006 3:07 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by nwr
02-12-2006 12:45 AM


Re: How to argue for induction
I guess you have forgotten the point of the request already. You were supposed to be producing a real example to show that your fictional example in the OP was not a strawman.
quote:
The number of observations was not the point
But it is very much the point. Induction relies on statistics, You need a good body of observations to make valid inductions. By choosing a hopelessly small number you set up a strawman. If you don't care about that then that speaks very poorly of you.
quote:
That might be a fair conclusion if the literature on philosophy of science actually had clear evidence of induction being used.
In other words you are now claiming that you do not understand what the quote you produced meant.
[quote] qsIf you actually intend to have a serious discussion then I suggest that you actually present your methodology and show how it removes the need for induction.[/qs] It would be pointless. You have been consistently failing to respond to the parts of my posts that were relevant to such a discussion. [/quote]
That's false. You've consistently failed to deal with the real problem all through this discussion. Your invocation of trial and error doesn't address it all - it's only a way of collecting observation. You've denied that you meant either deriving scientific laws from direct observation or by deduction. Use of earlier laws simply raises a bootstrapping problem.
So far as I can tell the real reason why you are refusing to talk about your methodology is that you don't HAVE a sensible alternative to induction. And the low quality of the rest of your post only reinforces the idea that you are not even trying to hold a serious discussion at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by nwr, posted 02-12-2006 12:45 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by nwr, posted 02-13-2006 1:07 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 88 of 744 (286057)
02-13-2006 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by PaulK
02-12-2006 3:07 AM


Re: How to argue for induction
I guess you have forgotten the point of the request already. You were supposed to be producing a real example to show that your fictional example in the OP was not a strawman.
Your harping on this is an unnecessary diversion. If my thought experiment was a strawman, then most of the literature on induction consists of strawman arguments.
quote:
The number of observations was not the point
But it is very much the point. Induction relies on statistics, You need a good body of observations to make valid inductions.
We were not discussing statistical sampling. But if you want to include that, then most ordinary measurements consist of a statistical sample of size one that is taken as valid.
In other words you are now claiming that you do not understand what the quote you produced meant.
Stick to discussing the issues, instead of making accusations against the person.
Use of earlier laws simply raises a bootstrapping problem.
The fact is, that for many scientific laws, those laws are themselves prerequisite to the possibility of making the observations that the law is alleged to inductively generalize. If that is what you mean by "bootstrapping problem", then it is enough to demonstrate that induction could not possibly be the correct explanation.
So far as I can tell the real reason why you are refusing to talk about your methodology is that you don't HAVE a sensible alternative to induction.
Stick to discussing the issues, instead of making allegations about the person.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by PaulK, posted 02-12-2006 3:07 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Rrhain, posted 02-13-2006 1:19 AM nwr has replied
 Message 90 by PaulK, posted 02-13-2006 2:41 AM nwr has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 89 of 744 (286058)
02-13-2006 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by nwr
02-13-2006 1:07 AM


Re: How to argue for induction
nwr writes:
quote:
most ordinary measurements consist of a statistical sample of size one that is taken as valid.
Incorrect. "Measure twice, cut once" as the cliche goes.
That said, measurement is a deductive process, not an inductive one. You are given a standard (that has been calibrated, another deductive process) and you compare the given to the standard and include your error term if you're doing science.
quote:
The fact is, that for many scientific laws, those laws are themselves prerequisite to the possibility of making the observations that the law is alleged to inductively generalize.
So? You make a huge number of observations about how falling bodies behave and you come to the inductive conclusion that they accelerate by an inverse square ratio. You then use that inverse square ratio to predict the next falling body. Because the conclusion is strongly justified through all previous observation, we expect the next one to be similar. If it isn't, then we know we've got something interesting going on.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by nwr, posted 02-13-2006 1:07 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by nwr, posted 02-14-2006 1:38 AM Rrhain has not replied

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


Message 90 of 744 (286067)
02-13-2006 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by nwr
02-13-2006 1:07 AM


Re: How to argue for induction
quote:
Your harping on this is an unnecessary diversion. If my thought experiment was a strawman, then most of the literature on induction consists of strawman arguments.
Since it was your initial argument in the OP then it seems relevant. It seems more likely that the reason you want to stop talking about it is because I am right. The final assertion about arguments for induction is a clear non-sequitur, the more so since a strawman argument must be an arguet AGAINST something.
quote:
We were not discussing statistical sampling. But if you want to include that, then most ordinary measurements consist of a statistical sample of size one that is taken as valid.
Induction is at the least very closely related (the statistical methods of hypothesis testing are used to analyse experimental results). And when you say "most ordinary measurements consist of a statistical sample of size one" are you simply referring to ordinary measuremnts of a single object (which would be irrelevant) or are you asserting that we can validly derive a general statement about a population from a single measurement on a single individual ?
quote:
Stick to discussing the issues, instead of making accusations against the person.
Let me remind you that you chose to make accusations rather than discussing the issues in starting this subthread.
quote:
The fact is, that for many scientific laws, those laws are themselves
prerequisite to the possibility of making the observations that the law is alleged to inductively generalize. If that is what you mean by "bootstrapping problem", then it is enough to demonstrate that induction could not possibly be the correct explanation.
Your initial statement is trivially true in the sense that we cannot observe something that does not exist. It may even be true in the sense that the observer could not exist or would be unable to make observations in many cases. However neither of these would help your case. We are not talking about the existence of a "law", we are talking about how we can know that it applies.
However that is not what I menat by a "bootstrapping problem". What I mean is that if you wish to derive a "law" of physics from one or more more basic "laws", it is necessary to know the more basic "laws" first. Thus such a method is forced into an infinite regress.
And pointing out that there are no available alternatives is not intended ot be a formal proof that induction is necessary. After all such an argumnt could be easily falsified if it failed to enumerate a possibility. However it is up to you to actually show that there is such a possibility, the more so since you allege that scientists have been using it for centuries.
quote:
Stick to discussing the issues, instead of making allegations about the person
By which you mean that I shouldn't mention that you were making allegations against my person as an excuse to avoid discussing the issues. And presumably I shouldn't mention that you have just done it again. Why don't you leave off the "do as I say don't do as I do" and actually describe this method of yours ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by nwr, posted 02-13-2006 1:07 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by nwr, posted 02-14-2006 1:36 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