|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Induction and Science | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Straggler writes: Will gravity still be operating as currently experienced next week? On what basis do you make your conclusion? (Message 159) Straggler writes: On what do you base your "probably" conclusion? Why more likely than not? Be specific. (Message 161) Straggler writes: Will the pen that I drop next week still drop at the same rate, obeying the same laws that it did when I dropped my pen just now? (Message 163) Straggler writes: 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? (Message 167) Straggler writes:
I'm going to call this "the Straggler gallop". It's a variant of the Gish Gallop. The procedure seems to be to throw out a bunch of not very relevant questions, demand answers, but otherwise completely avoid engaging in any thoughtful discussion.Will gravity still be operating as currently experienced next week? On what basis do you make your conclusion? (Message 181) Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2725 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, nwr.
nwr writes: Straggler writes: The entirety of science and it's ability to predict is based on the consistency of natural laws. As far as I can tell, there are no natural laws. There are natural phenomena. I don't see how this could be anything but a semantic argument. Straggler used the phrase, "consistency of natural laws." In this, I think he was being somewhat redundant: surely it's the consistency of a given natural phenomenon that makes him decide to call it a "law," right? This is the connotation of the phrase "natural law," after all. So, why are you arguing that there are no "natural laws"? Are you arguing that there are actually no natural phenomena that are consistent enough to be considered "laws"? I'd have to disagree with you on that: gravity is a great example of a phenomenon that is consistent enough to merit the designation of "law." So, now I ask, if I can persuade Straggler to reword his statement thus---
quote: ---would anything substantive about his argument be changed? I don't see how it could. So, either you are objecting to word choice, or you are arguing that no natural phenomena show the consistency that Straggler was claiming. I don't see how either one of these options is a particularly good argument. Edited by Bluejay, : It's patently stupid to use a subtitle that is identical to the thread title. Moose would have a fit. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I take induction to be making a truth claim. It might be an uncertain truth claim, but it is still a truth claim. Indeed. And if you say it is true that it is not certain, but probably true that gravity will be functioning next week, that your chair will exert an 'opposite force' to keep you falling on your ass, and that your car won't accelerate to light speed when you press the accelerator - then you are making an induction. When you say
quote: you are saying that you accept induction. This article on inductive logic is almost entirely composed of statistical reasoning. It is very concerned with how confident we can be of our inductions using statistical reasoning.
quote: emphasis in original (definitions of most of the symbols are laid out in unquoted reams of text - making it difficult to quote) Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Blue Jay writes:
What do you take "natural law" to mean?Straggler used the phrase, "consistency of natural laws." Aristotle had an account of gravity.Newton had an account of gravity. Einstein had an account of gravity. Those three all disagreed with one another. Which of them, if any, was a natural law?
Blue Jay writes:
What does it mean to say that a natural phenomenon is consistent? What would it mean for a natural phenomenon to not be consistent and is that even possible?
In this, I think he was being somewhat redundant: surely it's the consistency of a given natural phenomenon that makes him decide to call it a "law," right? This is the connotation of the phrase "natural law," after all. Blue Jay writes:
I'm not sure what argument we are talking about. I seem to recall that Straggler made a bare assertion, but gave no argument.
So, now I ask, if I can persuade Straggler to reword his statement thus--- quote: ---would anything substantive about his argument be changed? Blue Jay writes:
I don't think I am actually doing either of those. But it does come down to the meaning of "natural law". I have heard someone suggest that "natural law" just refers to the phenomenon (or phenemona). And if that's what it means, then I certainly agree that there are natural phenomena.So, either you are objecting to word choice, or you are arguing that no natural phenomena show the consistency that Straggler was claiming. However, most people seem to use "natural law" to refer to the scientific statements that I quite happily call "scientific laws." And if that is what "natural law" means, then I am denying that those laws are part of nature. The fact that there have been several contradictory versions of gravitation laws would tend to support my view. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Modulous writes:
But that is not what I said. I expressed an opinion, but only after considerable badgering. Moreover, I also said that it was a guess. There was no truth claim there.
And if you say it is true that it is not certain, but probably true that gravity will be functioning next week, ... Modulous writes:
There would be no induction at all in the "opposite force" part...., that your chair will exert an 'opposite force' to keep you falling on your ass, ... You seem to be losing track. The issue was whether science depends on induction, not whether I can be said to be using it in my private life.
Modulous writes:
According to Rudolph Carnap, the degree to which scientific statements such as Newton's laws are supported by inductive evidence is precisely zero. Do you have a reference that shows otherwise?quote: Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
A quick additional comment here. I posted my first reply just as the board seemed to be going down, so I missed adding this.
I would like to thank Blue Jay for actually sticking to the issue, instead of going on a diversion as others (particularly Straggler) have done.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
According to Rudolph Carnap, the degree to which scientific statements such as Newton's laws are supported by inductive evidence is precisely zero. Do you have a reference that shows otherwise? quote: When I was talking about induction, I was talking about the above. Are you saying the above is wrong? Do you think the above doesn't happen? Would you be fine calling it schminduction and accepting that scientists do it?
quote: I'm just arguing that the more modern view that has emerged in which the statistical and the inductive have been merged.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3740 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Modulous writes:
Aren't calculations the main difference between inductive logic and statistical reasoning? I'm just arguing that the more modern view that has emerged in which the statistical and the inductive have been merged. Inductive logic doesn't have calculations: it just says "It happened all last year: it will probably happen next year too". Whereas statistical reasoning calculates the 'odds' of something happening: "There is a 90% chance that it will happen next year". Edited by Panda, : posyt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Aren't calculations the main difference between inductive logic and statistical reasoning?
No - I don't think so: Stastical reasoning can be used to make inductive inferrences and can be used to justify the confidence levels of our inductions. See the article I linke to in Message 76:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3740 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Modulous writes:
I think I screwed up my previous post - my head cold is fugging my finking. No - I don't think so: Stastical reasoning can be used to make inductive inferrences and can be used to justify the confidence levels of our inductions.I'll try again... *cough* Aren't calculated 'odds' the main difference between Inductive Logic and Statistical Reasoning?Inductive Logic doesn't require calculated values in it's conclusion: it can just say "It happened all last year: it will probably happen next year too". Whereas Statistical Reasoning does require the chance of something happening to be calculated and stated: "There is a 90.1% chance that it will happen next year". I would therefore describe Statistical Reasoning as a 'subset' of Inductive Logic. Edited by Panda, : tpyos
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
The fact you do not like a question and cannot answer it does not make it a bad question. Nor does it make it "off-topic".
I would say that we can consider it exceptionally probable that gravity will still be operating as currently experienced and that this conclusion is derived from inductive reasoning. Hence the relevancy. You deny the validity of inductive reasoning and instead have advocated something you are calling "statistical reasoning". So I asked: What is "statistical reasoning"?How does it work? In what way is it significantly different to the sort of inductive reasoning that we are all familiar with? And can you specifically describe how can it be used to derive the conclusion that gravity will "probably" still be operating as currently experienced? If you don't like gravity for some reason then apply the same question to friction or the electrostatic force or indeed anything else that is commonly referred to as a "natural law". But ALL I ask is that your don't do your usual trick of posting stock phrases and meaningless philosopho-sounding but unexplained terms as answers. For once in your nut nibbling squirrel brained EvC existence don't hide behind the cover of ambiguity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
BluJ writes: So, now I ask, if I can persuade Straggler to reword his statement thus--- "The entirety of science and it's ability to predict is based on the consistency of natural phenomena." ---would anything substantive about his argument be changed? Fine by me.
Nwr writes: What does it mean to say that a natural phenomenon is consistent? What would it mean for a natural phenomenon to not be consistent and is that even possible? Well for example if gravity were to suddenly start randomly swapping between being an attractive force and a repulsive one. Or if friction were to sometimes amplify rather than oppose the motion between two objects with no pattern as to when it would do which. Is it possible for these things to occur - I would say probably not but I would also say that conclusion was derived inductively. Which is why I think it is pertinent to ask how Nwr comes to these same conclusions without using induction. If you can explain his position then I would be delighted to hear it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Nwr writes: Mod writes: And if you say it is true that it is not certain, but probably true that gravity will be functioning next week, ... But that is not what I said. I expressed an opinion, but only after considerable badgering. Moreover, I also said that it was a guess. There was no truth claim there. So what, according to your view of science, is the scientific conclusion regarding gravity operating as we currently observe it this time next week? Is it not obvious that in a thread about science as non-indictive that this, rather than your opinion, is what I am asking? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024