Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Induction and Science
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 241 of 744 (591205)
11-12-2010 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by nwr
11-11-2010 2:33 PM


Re: Predictions
Are you seriously suggesting that predictions (such as eclipses) have not achieved "consensus acceptance by a large body of scientists"?
The entirety of applied science is based on the inductively reasoned conclusion that natural phenomenon will behave in the future as they have been observed to behave thus far.
Yet you call such conclusions "guesses" or "opinions".
Your position is ridiculous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by nwr, posted 11-11-2010 2:33 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by nwr, posted 11-12-2010 6:30 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 242 of 744 (591208)
11-12-2010 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by nwr
11-11-2010 6:50 PM


hypothesis testing with limited evidence
Ah, sigh. That sounds like a good old apologetics argument to me. I would prefer actual evidence.
If you'd like evidence of what pragmatism means I suppose you could look it up. I know you have the capacity to do that, so I didn't want to patronise you too much.
I have never denied that Newton's laws were general statements. But that they are general statements does not demonstrate that they were arrived at by means of induction from specific observations.
Fantastic - I'm not claiming that because they are general therefore they were arrived at by means of induction. Newton could have seen them in a dream for all I care for the point I'm making.
Oh, bullshit.
How many specific evidences to you need to support the general statement "There are 100 centimetres in a metre"?
That's not an empirical claim, its tautologous, so is not relevant to a discussion on science.
But we can accept that it is a generalisation that science justifies by supporting it with a smaller set of specific cases.
So are we supposed to accept that on faith, without any actual evidence?
Unless you claim that scientists take the third law of motion on faith, I don't think I need to. But the methodology of science strongly suggests that before a law can be accepted, it must have evidence of being true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by nwr, posted 11-11-2010 6:50 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by nwr, posted 11-12-2010 6:45 PM Modulous has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 243 of 744 (591211)
11-12-2010 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Jon
11-11-2010 6:55 PM


Re: The Myth of Induction
Jon writes:
Next time try not starting from a bullshit premise.
Jon if you accept that not all premises are equally valid then you necessarily accept that not all deductively derived conclusions are equally valid.
Welcome to sanity.
Jon writes:
Straggler writes:
Because purely deductive methods mean that - Nonsense In = Nonsense Out
Okay.
Bear this in mind the next time you start deducing things from premises without considering the validity or origin of the premises themselves.
Jon writes:
Straggler writes:
So we have to have some way of deriving our starting point for deductive logic.
Sure. Not sure how this has any bearing on whether inductive arguments are merely deductive arguments with unstated premises, though.
Because the premises of your little logic exercise are themselves inductively derived.
Your premise that unobserved phenomenon will behave in the same way as observed phenomenon is itself inductively derived from experience.
Between periods of observation the world appears to have continued to operate as it did whilst you were observing it. Thus you inductively conclude that it did and always will.
Jon writes:
To falsify it, you need only provide one example of an argument that is inductive that cannot be made deductive by adding missing premises.
Your little logic exercise is itself derived from inductive reasoning.
How funny is that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Jon, posted 11-11-2010 6:55 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Jon, posted 11-12-2010 1:44 PM Straggler has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 244 of 744 (591224)
11-12-2010 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Straggler
11-12-2010 1:12 PM


Re: The Myth of Induction
Oh, Straggler, still not ready to address the topic yet, eh?
Jon if you accept that not all premises are equally valid then you necessarily accept that not all deductively derived conclusions are equally valid.
You seem to be conflating different notions of 'validity'. I have never accepted that all premises are 'equally valid' under the notion of 'validity' that you use; and under the notion of 'validity' that I use, 'valid premise' is a meaningless phrase. Also, this has nothing to do with the topic.
Bear this in mind the next time you start deducing things from premises without considering the validity or origin of the premises themselves.
Again, just more conflation with no attempt whatsoever to address the topic.
Your premise that unobserved phenomenon will behave in the same way as observed phenomenon is itself inductively derived from experience.
It wasn't a premise per se; it was an assumption. And where it originated, is, of course, unimportant. Now, how about trying to address the topic?
Between periods of observation the world appears to have continued to operate as it did whilst you were observing it.
Any attempt to support the axiom that 'the observance or non-observance of something will not impact its nature' with evidence that is observationally-derived is pointless. And proving it with unobserved evidence, is, of course, non-scientific and thus irrelevant to the topic of this thread.
Your little logic exercise is itself derived from inductive reasoning.
Of course, that remains to be demonstrated. You've been asked several times to provide a (relevant) counter-argument to my original claim:
quote:
Jon in Message 178:
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.
Should I interpret your unwillingness to do this as indication of your inability to do this, or do you actually have something to say on this matter?
Jon
Edited by Jon, : Now+

Check out Apollo's Temple!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Straggler, posted 11-12-2010 1:12 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Straggler, posted 11-12-2010 1:47 PM Jon has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 245 of 744 (591226)
11-12-2010 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by Jon
11-12-2010 1:44 PM


Re: The Myth of Induction
I have provided you with the source of your premises and shown your argument to be ultimately inductive in the process.
The conclusion that the world will always continue to operate when unobserved as it does when observed is inductively derived.
Unless you can provide a deductive source for your premises you remain refuted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Jon, posted 11-12-2010 1:44 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Jon, posted 11-12-2010 2:02 PM Straggler has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 246 of 744 (591228)
11-12-2010 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by Straggler
11-12-2010 1:47 PM


Re: The Myth of Induction
I have provided you with the source of your premises and shown your argument to be ultimately inductive in the process.
LOL.
The conclusion that the world will always continue to operate when unobserved as it does when observed is inductively derived.
False. Assumptions (axioms) are by definition derived from nothing.
Unless you can provide a deductive source for your premises you remain refuted.
LOL.
Jon

Check out Apollo's Temple!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Straggler, posted 11-12-2010 1:47 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Straggler, posted 11-13-2010 10:22 AM Jon has replied

  
Stephen Push
Member (Idle past 4860 days)
Posts: 140
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 247 of 744 (591249)
11-12-2010 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Jon
11-10-2010 9:36 AM


Re: The Myth of Induction
Jon writes:
A1: The observance or non-observance of something will not impact its nature, w/ some exceptions (axiom)
A1 is false, unless your exceptions include quantum phenomena. Even if you treat quantum phenomena as an exception, there is no way to know whether A1 is true. In effect you have, as others have already pointed out, used induction to derive your axiom.
Similarly, deductive arguments in science that started with premises the truth of which were unknowable would be useless formalisms. That is one reason why science often has to rely on induction.
Edited by Stephen Push, : No reason given.
Edited by Stephen Push, : No reason given.
Edited by Stephen Push, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Jon, posted 11-10-2010 9:36 AM Jon has not replied

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


Message 248 of 744 (591252)
11-12-2010 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Blue Jay
11-12-2010 10:45 AM


Re: Laws and Phenomena
Blue Jay writes:
So, you're arguing that even a random natural phenomenon could be considered a "consistent" phenomenon?
My main point was that the word "consistent" was being used in a way that I could not work out what was meant. It's a bit hard to respond to an argument when you can't tell what is being argued.
Blue Jay writes:
Picture a specific misrepair mutation, ...
I'm not a biologist. I don't know enough about the situation to be able to hazard a guess.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Blue Jay, posted 11-12-2010 10:45 AM Blue Jay has not replied

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


Message 249 of 744 (591258)
11-12-2010 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Blue Jay
11-12-2010 11:18 AM


Re: Predictions
Blue Jay writes:
---was it just the anthropomorphism that bothered you?
No, it was the confusion between the actions of science as an institution, and the actions of individual scientists. I see it as important to keep those distinct.
Blue Jay writes:
If, when you say, "...those predictions should be considered predictions of science..." you mean, "...we should say that they are what the entire body of scientists worldwide would predict," then no, we should not consider those predictions to be the predictions of science.
I thought I was asking a rhetorical question, and not actually saying anything.
To get back to my point, it seems to me that scientists make predictions, but science as an institution does not.
Here's a recent headline: Odds of Life on Nearby Planet '100 Percent,' Astronomer Says
That's a prediction by a scientist. Should we say that science, as an institution, is making that prediction?

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Blue Jay, posted 11-12-2010 11:18 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by Blue Jay, posted 11-13-2010 4:36 PM nwr has replied

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


Message 250 of 744 (591261)
11-12-2010 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by Straggler
11-12-2010 12:44 PM


Re: Predictions
Straggler writes:
Are you seriously suggesting that predictions (such as eclipses) have not achieved "consensus acceptance by a large body of scientists"?
For the moment, I'll go with my response to Blue Jay in Message 249.
When we use an expression of the form "science predicts ...", I'm inclined to say that is a metaphoric way of speaking.
Straggler writes:
The entirety of applied science is based on the inductively reasoned conclusion that natural phenomenon will behave in the future as they have been observed to behave thus far.
That sounds like creationist (as in ID) reasoning.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Straggler, posted 11-12-2010 12:44 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Straggler, posted 11-13-2010 11:06 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 251 of 744 (591262)
11-12-2010 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Modulous
11-12-2010 12:57 PM


Re: hypothesis testing with limited evidence
Modulous writes:
If you'd like evidence of what pragmatism means I suppose you could look it up.
I'm calling foul on that. The particular discussion was on inductive support for Newton's third law. You are twisting it to pretend that it was about pragmatism.
Modulous writes:
Unless you claim that scientists take the third law of motion on faith, I don't think I need to. But the methodology of science strongly suggests that before a law can be accepted, it must have evidence of being true.
You still don't get it, do you.
Newton's third law is a convention, an empirical principle. It is prior to any evidence.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Modulous, posted 11-12-2010 12:57 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Modulous, posted 11-12-2010 7:02 PM nwr has replied
 Message 254 by Stephen Push, posted 11-12-2010 8:38 PM nwr has replied

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


Message 252 of 744 (591263)
11-12-2010 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by nwr
11-12-2010 6:45 PM


Re: hypothesis testing with limited evidence
I'm calling foul on that. The particular discussion was on inductive support for Newton's third law. You are twisting it to pretend that it was about pragmatism.
The quoted section which you called apologetics and demanded evidence was about induction and pragmatics.
That's not induction. That's pragmatism. You are accepting what works. I agree that science is very pragmatic. What I am questioning is the use of induction, not the use of pragmatism.
Induction is pragmatic.
Maybe, though I think that's a stretch. Induction can often lead to wrong conclusions, and that does not seem very pragmatic to me.
That's just wordplay. We use it, not because it is perfect but because it works often enough to justify using it. That's pragmatics. And it is far more pragmatic to be occasionally wrong (as long as you admit it ahead of time (principle of fallibilism)), than to not be able to make any general scientific statements based on limited evidence.
It also ignores the methods used by science to minimise the frequency of erroneous inductions: statistical reasoning. (Again, a very pragmatic thing to do)
Ah, sigh. That sounds like a god old apologetics argument to me. I would prefer actual evidence.
Next time you ask for evidence - try specifying what it is you are asking evidence for, it'll help avoid these issues.
You still don't get it, do you.
Newton's third law is a convention, an empirical principle. It is prior to any evidence.
Apparently I do get it. As I said, Newton could have derived them from a dream, or indeed a bag of scrambled letters and numbers. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and that's where the science gets done.
In science as it is actually done we make use of evidence. Whether the evidence leads to the formulation of the law, or the law is supported by the evidence afterwards does not matter. It is the evidence comparison to the law that involves the inductive leap whichever order that comparison happens to occur in.
Deriving a law can be done empirically in science - whether or not you believe Newton's laws were not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by nwr, posted 11-12-2010 6:45 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by nwr, posted 11-12-2010 7:46 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 253 of 744 (591266)
11-12-2010 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by Modulous
11-12-2010 7:02 PM


Re: hypothesis testing with limited evidence
Modulous writes:
The quoted section which you called apologetics and demanded evidence was about induction and pragmatics.
I withdraw the "calling foul" and apologize for that. I was careless in my checking back to the preceding argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Modulous, posted 11-12-2010 7:02 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Stephen Push
Member (Idle past 4860 days)
Posts: 140
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 254 of 744 (591276)
11-12-2010 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by nwr
11-12-2010 6:45 PM


Re: hypothesis testing with limited evidence
nwr writes:
Newton's third law is a convention, an empirical principle. It is prior to any evidence.
I don't believe that the third law just popped into Newton's head without evidence. In Principia Newton cites the example of a horse pulling a rope tied to a stone. Later observations and experiments have confirmed the law, but prior evidence must have inspired Newton to propose it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by nwr, posted 11-12-2010 6:45 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by nwr, posted 11-12-2010 10:18 PM Stephen Push has replied

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


Message 255 of 744 (591297)
11-12-2010 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Stephen Push
11-12-2010 8:38 PM


Re: hypothesis testing with limited evidence
Stephen Push writes:
I don't believe that the third law just popped into Newton's head without evidence.
He probably noticed that it was an unstated assumption in several previous centuries of practice (such as when weighing things). And that he stated it, rather than leaving it unstated, was possibly because he needed it in his mathematics to prove the conservation of momentum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Stephen Push, posted 11-12-2010 8:38 PM Stephen Push has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Stephen Push, posted 11-13-2010 1:59 AM nwr 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