Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Induction and Science
JustinC
Member (Idle past 4844 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 121 of 744 (289431)
02-22-2006 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by nwr
02-22-2006 1:22 AM


Re: How to argue for induction
I guess I tend to agree with this. Obviously you need deduction when changing units, but not when doing the actual measurement. Correct?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by nwr, posted 02-22-2006 1:22 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by nwr, posted 02-22-2006 8:08 AM JustinC has not replied

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


Message 122 of 744 (289477)
02-22-2006 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by JustinC
02-22-2006 3:05 AM


Re: How to argue for induction
Obviously you need deduction when changing units, but not when doing the actual measurement. Correct?
That's what seems obvious to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by JustinC, posted 02-22-2006 3:05 AM JustinC has not replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1399 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 123 of 744 (289614)
02-22-2006 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by nwr
02-22-2006 1:19 AM


Re: How to argue for induction
Big mistake there, crashfrog. Comparison is a very difficult problem.
Isn't this part of measurement error? If we include measurement error, then it seems to me this concern goes away. Exact comparison is a very difficult problem. But comparison within some definable error is tractable, it seems.
I agree that measurement is not a deductive process; it is a physical one. You could use all the deduction in the world, but without gathering a data point, you're not going to have anything to deduce. Seems a trivial point.
Anyway, how does this tie into the topic? I didn't have the luxury of paging through everything. (But I'm back baby! )

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by nwr, posted 02-22-2006 1:19 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by nwr, posted 02-22-2006 10:46 PM Ben! has not replied

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


Message 124 of 744 (289650)
02-22-2006 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Ben!
02-22-2006 5:55 PM


Re: How to argue for induction
Exact comparison is a very difficult problem. But comparison within some definable error is tractable, it seems.
My comment was a response to crashfrom "Comparing the same characteristic of two objects is trivial,..". That could include comparing a small green apple with a big red apple, or a small green apple with a green plum (of about the same size as the apple). Object comparison is difficult.
Admittedly, crashfrog was mainly concerned with the comparisons required for measuring. But even then, you have to know what you are measuring in order to know what you are comparing. We find it easy, but if you try to automate general purpose measuring with a robotic system, you will discover that it isn't at all easy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Ben!, posted 02-22-2006 5:55 PM Ben! has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by crashfrog, posted 02-23-2006 12:51 AM nwr has replied
 Message 137 by crashfrog, posted 06-30-2006 4:33 PM nwr has replied

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


Message 125 of 744 (289671)
02-23-2006 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by nwr
02-22-2006 10:46 PM


Re: How to argue for induction
This:
That could include comparing a small green apple with a big red apple
Is not a response to this:
"Comparing the same characteristic of two objects is trivial,..".
Comparing the same characteristics, as I specified, is trivial. It's trivial to measure the dimensions of apples, be they green or red. And it's trivial to measure the color of apples of any size.
We find it easy, but if you try to automate general purpose measuring with a robotic system, you will discover that it isn't at all easy.
I can think of several easy ways to do it, specific to the measurement of each characteristic. If I wanted to measure the volume of an object I could immerse it and measure the displacement. Weight is trivial. Mass slightly less so. (I would probably measure its inertia.) Length? I suppose that means determining the long aspect of the object, but again, inertia and the center of mass can be used to properly orient the object for measurement.
I mean, seriously. These things don't sound that hard. I'm not trying to be overconfident, and maybe you have a different definition of "non-trivial" than I do. But these things seem trivial if one simply applies a little creativity. The same as one would have to do in a mathematical proof.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by nwr, posted 02-22-2006 10:46 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by nwr, posted 02-24-2006 12:54 AM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 126 of 744 (289923)
02-24-2006 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by crashfrog
02-23-2006 12:51 AM


Re: How to argue for induction
Comparing the same characteristics, as I specified, is trivial.
Whether it is an apple or a plum is a characteristic. My answer was responsive.
I can think of several easy ways to do it, specific to the measurement of each characteristic.
Easy for you, sure. That's because you have a lot of experience. It isn't easy to automate.
If I wanted to measure the volume of an object I could immerse it and measure the displacement.
This doesn't work very well if the object dissolves in water, reacts chemically with water, or soaks up water.
Weight is trivial. Mass slightly less so. (I would probably measure its inertia.)
It won't be easy to measure the inertia of something that is soft and squishy.
These things don't sound that hard.
That's because you have never tried to design a general purpose robotic system that could do it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by crashfrog, posted 02-23-2006 12:51 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by crashfrog, posted 02-24-2006 9:41 AM nwr has replied

  
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5851 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 127 of 744 (289925)
02-24-2006 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by nwr
02-04-2006 2:36 PM


# 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.
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.
Why do people still cling to the myth that science uses induction? Why is there an appearance that induction seems to work, and why are people misled by this appearance?
The answer to this is something I have mentioned in other posts.
People forget that science is concieved by a fallible source that repeats its mistakes and has through out history in both science and religion.. That is a FACT. I can say with confidence it is a human constant.
People use induction....science doesn't. Science does not have the capacity to "use" anything.
Remember remember remember and do not forget....we are the lynchpin and the world is not flat.
This message has been edited by 2ice_baked_taters, 02-24-2006 01:27 AM

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

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


Message 128 of 744 (290037)
02-24-2006 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by nwr
02-24-2006 12:54 AM


Re: How to argue for induction
Whether it is an apple or a plum is a characteristic.
And what characteristic is that? It's fruitness? I'm sorry, but your response is apples and oranges, if you'll pardon the pun.
This doesn't work very well if the object dissolves in water, reacts chemically with water, or soaks up water.
Who said anything about water?
That's because you have never tried to design a general purpose robotic system that could do it.
And you have? I'm curious, now. Specifically, which robotic systems have you designed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by nwr, posted 02-24-2006 12:54 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by nwr, posted 03-01-2006 10:11 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6082 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 129 of 744 (291333)
03-01-2006 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by nwr
02-04-2006 3:05 PM


So is with Evolution
Naturalistic philosophers are only promoting Evolution. Scientists are the only ones who have difficult time in finding evidence. They did not find the evidence and on this basis, propose the theory.But,they proposed the theory before the evidence. Darwin himself was fearful about the fossil evidence and the missing link.How can they find Scientific evidence for a Philosophical theory?
This message has been edited by inkorrekt, 03-01-2006 09:01 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by nwr, posted 02-04-2006 3:05 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by nwr, posted 03-01-2006 10:16 PM inkorrekt has replied

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


Message 130 of 744 (291348)
03-01-2006 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by crashfrog
02-24-2006 9:41 AM


Re: How to argue for induction
quote:
This doesn't work very well if the object dissolves in water, reacts chemically with water, or soaks up water.
Who said anything about water?
If you have to be careful about what fluid you use, then it is not trivial.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by crashfrog, posted 02-24-2006 9:41 AM crashfrog has not replied

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


Message 131 of 744 (291350)
03-01-2006 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by inkorrekt
03-01-2006 8:59 PM


Re: So is with Evolution
They did not find the evidence and on this basis, propose the theory.But,they proposed the theory before the evidence.
That's because one of the roles of the theory is to suggest the type of evidence to seek. It is why it is sometimes said that data is theory driven. This is part of the inventiveness of science, and a major reason for science's effectiveness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by inkorrekt, posted 03-01-2006 8:59 PM inkorrekt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by NosyNed, posted 03-01-2006 10:35 PM nwr has replied
 Message 134 by inkorrekt, posted 06-29-2006 10:55 PM nwr has replied

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


Message 132 of 744 (291351)
03-01-2006 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by nwr
03-01-2006 10:16 PM


Theory first?
You might note, nwr, that the theory did NOT come before the evidence as he-of-most-appropriate-name says. It came before the huge amount of evidence that we have found since. It specifically came before almost ALL the fossil evidence that has been found since.
However, Darwin had considerable evidence it just pales in comparison to what we have now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by nwr, posted 03-01-2006 10:16 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by nwr, posted 03-01-2006 11:15 PM NosyNed has not replied

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


Message 133 of 744 (291355)
03-01-2006 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by NosyNed
03-01-2006 10:35 PM


Re: Theory first?
You might note, nwr, that the theory did NOT come before the evidence as he-of-most-appropriate-name says.
Theories don't come out of a vacuum. They are attempts to account for evidence. I agree that inkorrekt made some confused and misleading comments about that.
Still, it is true that theories usually lead to a search for new data. In the case of ToE, most of the evidence has been found since Darwin proposed his theory. And I think you would agree that the current ToE differs from what Darwin proposed, due to the evidence since uncovered.
However, Darwin had considerable evidence it just pales in comparison to what we have now.
He had evidence that called out for explanation. He offered a rather bold theory, which went well beyond what you could derive from the evidence he had at the time. But that's the way science often advances.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by NosyNed, posted 03-01-2006 10:35 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6082 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 134 of 744 (327638)
06-29-2006 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by nwr
03-01-2006 10:16 PM


Re: So is with Evolution
You are right on. Some theories become facts as and when evidence is provided.Other theories stay as theories because, there is no evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by nwr, posted 03-01-2006 10:16 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by nwr, posted 06-29-2006 11:35 PM inkorrekt has replied
 Message 136 by ramoss, posted 06-30-2006 8:56 AM inkorrekt has not replied

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


Message 135 of 744 (327650)
06-29-2006 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by inkorrekt
06-29-2006 10:55 PM


Re: So is with Evolution
This is mostly confusion between ordinary language use of "theory" (where the word means hypothesis), and the scientific use of "theory" where the word refers to the underlying structure of a body of study.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by inkorrekt, posted 06-29-2006 10:55 PM inkorrekt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by inkorrekt, posted 07-08-2006 1:59 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024