|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Induction and Science | |||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Straggler writes:
Try harder. Maybe you will be able to discover the mistake in your thinking.F=ma is a relationship between empirically observed phenomenon. You say F=ma is a standard and you say that a standard is an invention. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Nwr writes: As far as I can tell, there are no natural laws. Then on what basis can we predict anything? Will gravity still be operating as currently experienced next week? You said "probably". Can you explain this answer or are you just guessing?
Nwr writes: And I could say the same about the stupid questions that you are asking, and are repeating even though I answered them the first time. Questions are not "stupid" just because you do not like them or cannot answer them in a manner that is consistent with your position. Will gravity still be operating as currently experienced next week?
On what basis do you make your conclusion? You have not answered this at all so stop asserting that you have.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Nwr writes: Straggler writes: F=ma is a relationship between empirically observed phenomenon. You say F=ma is a standard and you say that a standard is an invention. Try harder. Maybe you will be able to discover the mistake in your thinking. Try being less ambiguous. Maybe you will find that you actually have a position that can be scrutinised. But maybe you don't want that......
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Straggler writes:
Of course I am guessing.Will gravity still be operating as currently experienced next week? You said "probably". Can you explain this answer or are you just guessing? I have no reason to suspect that it will change. But I have no way of knowing that it won't change. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
nwr writes: Try harder. Maybe you will be able to discover the mistake in your thinking. Straggler writes:
I think I have actually been quite precise. I suggest that you go back and carefully read the earlier posts, which were in the other thread.Try being less ambiguous. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Nwr writes: Straggler writes: Will gravity still be operating as currently experienced next week? You said "probably". Can you explain this answer or are you just guessing? Of course I am guessing. Is guessing a reliable method of drawing conclusions?
Nwr writes: I have no reason to suspect that it will change. But I have no way of knowing that it won't change. We have the consistency of natural law based on inductive reasoning that says it almost certainly won't change. I will bet you everything I own Vs everything you own that a pen dropped next Thursday will obey all the natural laws that apply today. Will you take that bet?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Nwr writes: I think I have actually been quite precise. I have yet to see you ever say anything unambiguous or precise here at EvC. You are the master of ambiguity and evasiveness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3741 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
nwr writes: I have no reason to suspect that it will change. But I have no way of knowing that it won't change. quote:source So, you use inductive logic in every day life.As does science. So - this thread is done?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Straggler writes:
I would call that "statistical reasoning" rather than "inductive logic."So, you use inductive logic in every day life. I have already agree that we use statistical reasoning - see Message 162 - but you won't get Newton's laws that way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
nwr writes: As far as I can tell, there are no natural laws. Straggler writes:
Prediction does not require natural laws.Then on what basis can we predict anything? You are thinking like a creationist.
Straggler writes:
Granted. Nevertheless you are asking stupid questions, which contribute nothing to the topic.Questions are not "stupid" just because you do not like them or cannot answer them in a manner that is consistent with your position. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3741 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
nwr writes:
Fine. I would call that "statistical reasoning" rather than "inductive logic."But please remember that everyone else is using the established name for inductive logic - which is: 'inductive logic'. And 'statistical reasoning' already has a definition which does not describe your behaviour. Things can get very confused when someone decides to arbitrarily re-define words in the English language.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Panda writes:
You are not talking about my behavior. You are talking only about what you assert to be my behavior.And 'statistical reasoning' already has a definition which does not describe your behaviour. Rudolph Carnap wrote a book "Logical Foundations of Probability" in which he analyzed induction. He came up with a measure, I think he called "degree of confirmation" achieved by the evidence used. And he came to the conclusion that degree of confirmation for laws such as Newton's (I think he actually used Einstein in his comment) have a degree of confirmation of zero. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
There is, of course, no such thing as 'induction'. All conclusions are arrived at deductively. That a premise may not be stated, admitted to, or even realized has little bearing on the fact that it actually exists.
Jon Check out Apollo's Temple!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3741 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
nwr writes:
Actually I was referring to how you describe your own behaviour. You are not talking about my behavior. You are talking only about what you assert to be my behavior. But anyway - go ahead and change the meanings of words as you wish.Just don't forget that only you will understand.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
There are natural phenomena. Gravity is a natural phenomenon. But the laws of gravity are not part of nature. They are human constructs that we use as part of our system for representing/describing what happens in nature. Correction: they are human constructs that we use to describe what has happened in nature according to our limited set of observations. If you want to say 'happens' then you are using induction.
I'm saying that Newtonian physics is not simply a matter of induction. No. But relying on Newtonian physics in novel situations would be induction.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024