|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,929 Year: 4,186/9,624 Month: 1,057/974 Week: 16/368 Day: 16/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Induction and Science | |||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
More revisionism I'm afraid. Whether you agreed or not about the generalisation your original question was answered - and you accpeted it as an answer (whether you agreed or not).
That seems dishonest. In the circumstances, I have no interest in further discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Wouldn't this be quicker if you just showed the deduction?
Your step 2 simply asserts the result of measurement as a premise. Your three steps do not include the actual act of measuring. 1. A particular platinum-iridium rod is defined as one meter (not anymore, obviously) 2. My ruler is the same length as the rod 3. My desk is 10 rulers long Ergo, my desk is 10 rulers * (1 rod/1 ruler)*(1 meter/rod)= 10 meters. Sure, that's a deduction, but the actual act of measuring was not part of that deduction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Comparing the same characteristic of two objects is trivial, ...
Big mistake there, crashfrog. Comparison is a very difficult problem. The reason they use bar codes in the grocery store, is because they haven't solved the problem of doing the comparisons that would be needed to directly recognized the items you are purchasing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Without original step 2:
But then you appear to be resorting to magic to get to step 2. 1. A particular platinum-iridium rod is defined as one meter (not anymore, obviously) 2. My desk is 10 rods long There seems to be an assumption that measuring is trivial. It isn't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Obviously you need deduction when changing units, but not when doing the actual measurement. Correct?
That's what seems obvious to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
quote:If you have to be careful about what fluid you use, then it is not trivial.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
If you thought I was arguing that measuring is deductive, you were mistaken.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
I will refer you to the Best selling book by Ann Coulter Religion of the Liberals( Godless)
That book is under discussion at Critique of Ann Coulter's The Church of Liberalism: Godless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Straggler writes:
Probably. But we would have to wait a week to find out.
Will gravity still be operating as currently experienced next week?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Straggler writes:
If gravity suddenly fails, we shall probably all be dead. Since we can't do anything about it, there's no point in worrying.On what do you base your "probably" conclusion? I'm not doubting that we use statistical evidence in a variety of ways. I'm saying that Newtonian physics is not simply a matter of induction.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024