|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Induction and Science | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen Push Member (Idle past 4859 days) Posts: 140 From: Virginia, USA Joined: |
nwr writes:
That sounds like a textbook case of inductive reasoning to me. Specific observations (e.g., weighing things, horses pulling stones) provide support for a generalized conclusion (third law of motion).
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
nwr writes: 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. Stephen Push writes:
You want to weigh some apples at the market. So you place them on the scale. Then you have:That sounds like a textbook case of inductive reasoning to me. Specific observations (e.g., weighing things, horses pulling stones) provide support for a generalized conclusion (third law of motion). (1) The force of gravity acting on the apples; (2) The force of the apples acting on the scale; (3) The force of the scale pushing up against the apples. Newton's third law asserts that the force in (3) is equal to the force in (2), but acting in the opposite direction. Which of those forces is being measured by the scale? How do you independently measure the other one so as to get an actual observation that could be used in the alleged induction? Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Which of those forces is being measured by the scale? How do you independently measure the other one so as to get an actual observation that could be used in the alleged induction? Newton used pendulums, rather than scales:
quote:{From Principia} As for the source of his Laws - Newton cites Galileo's observations of projectiles and pendulums as well as Christopher Wren, Dr Wallis and Mr Huygens. As Newton said at the start of the section, the partial quote above comes from, "Sir Christopher Wren discovered the truth of the thing before the Royal Society by the experiment of pendulums". Discovered the truth, by experiment? Sounds like induction being employed in science as its done, no? Edited by Modulous, : deleted "From what I recall" since I looked it up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Jon writes: Straggler writes: 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. Then how can you claim that your axioms are have any more validity than those I used when I applied Bill's epistemology to come to the opposite conclusion to you? You cannot. Not without contradicting your own argument.
Jon writes: Next time try not starting from a bullshit premise. Unless you can tell us why the baseless assumptions you used as axioms are valid and mine are "bullshit" you really have no argument at all do you? The fact is you have arrived at your axioms inductively and then used your litte logic exercise to "prove" the opposite. You have done the equivalent of writing the paradoxical statement "This sentence is not true".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Jon writes: I've made a falsifiable argument. To falsify it, you need only provide one example of an argument that is inductive that cannot be made deductive by adding missing premises. The conclusion 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 being oberved. Thus we inductively conclude that it did so and will continue to do so. What are the missing premises here? And if any exist are they themselves inductively arrived at?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Nwr writes: Acceptance of a scientific theory is a consensus acceptance by a large body of scientists. However, predictions are made by individuals and not by the body of scientists at large. Straggler writes: Are you seriously suggesting that predictions (such as eclipses) have not achieved "consensus acceptance by a large body of scientists"? Nwr writes: When we use an expression of the form "science predicts ...", I'm inclined to say that is a metaphoric way of speaking. NASA is a metaphor for who exactly? NASA eclipse site Nwr writes: When we use an expression of the form "science predicts ...", I'm inclined to say that is a metaphoric way of speaking. When we say "science concludes...." how is it different? Be specific. Give an example of a scientific conclusion that is not derived from individual scientists and is thus considered (by you) to be more scientific than a predicted eclipse.
Nwr writes: That sounds like creationist (as in ID) reasoning. That sounds like your trademark method of evading points you cannot actually deal with. You have invented a form of "science" that cannot say anything about any future event because any conclusion based on natural phenomenon behaving in the future as they have been observed to behave thus far is a "guess" or an "opinion" by the terms of your silly silly argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Modulous writes:
However, it was still really about concepts and not about facts. Most of what we take to be forces today, would not have been considered forces before Newton's time. Newton had to persuade people to use his concept of what to consider a force, and his laws are all about defining that concept.Newton used pendulums, rather than scales Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
And yet the scientific conclusion is that a body under no resultant force will remain at a constant velocity.
In the past, now and, inductively in the future too. Your non-inductive science remains incapable of coping with that "future" problem. Why would this theory apply tomorrow unless we inductively conclude that the physical property we call "inertial mass" will behave in a way that is consistent with all observations up until now?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
However, it was still really about concepts and not about facts. Most of what we take to be forces today, would not have been considered forces before Newton's time. Newton had to persuade people to use his concept of what to consider a force, and his laws are all about defining that concept. I propose that part of his persuasion involved pointing at the experiments that supported his position and asking people to make the inductive leap from something like 'the pendulums at my house over the past few years' to something like 'every object past, present and future.' This is what people are saying when they say science uses induction. They are talking about actual science as carried out by actual scientists. They aren't talking about some philosophical idealistic concepts that are nothing to do with facts. Generally they talk about taking the results of some experiments (looking at swans for example) and coming up with a law (all swans are white) and then testing that (by examining more swans, swan feathers, swan photos, swan videos all over the world) to increase confidence in the law. And that's where the induction is. You can, if you like, try to tell us that Newton wasn't talking about facts and was just engaged in some philosophical conceptual idealism. You can try and say his laws are just a self-consistent framework of concepts that he was defining (rather than describing (limited) observed facts mathematically) - but if that's the case, it wasn't science so is off topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Straggler writes:
If you were to start with people who were unfamiliar with Newton's science, and ask them about Newton's first law, they would tell you that it is obviously wrong. Nothing is more obvious than that moving things just slow down all by themselves.And yet the scientific conclusion is that a body under no resultant force will remain at a constant velocity. Newton's science, partly built on Galileo's science, involved a profound change in how we conceptualize the world. We had to start calling things forces (things such as friction), which were previously seen as just the ordinary slowing down of moving things. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Modulous writes:
Of course, I don't say that. It is a gross misunderstanding of my position.You can, if you like, try to tell us that Newton wasn't talking about facts and was just engaged in some philosophical conceptual idealism. Newton was very much concerned with facts. However, we very much disagree on how science works. We very much disagree on "fact". At this stage, we should probably just agree to disagree. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen Push Member (Idle past 4859 days) Posts: 140 From: Virginia, USA Joined: |
nwr writes:
Is this a trick question? Weighing was your example. Why did you cite it if you thought Newton could not have used it in formulating his third law? Which of those forces is being measured by the scale? How do you independently measure the other one so as to get an actual observation that could be used in the alleged induction? In any event, I think the question is moot, because it appears we were both wrong. Modulous in message 258 of this thread provided the correct answer: Newton used pendulums, not scales. Forgive me if I am raising an issue that has already been addressed, but does the fact the Newton says he used the inductive method count for anything?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I must have missed this message.
Straggler writes:
If gravity suddenly stops tomorrow, that just means that predictions for anything beyond that time will be wrong. The possibility does not stop us from making predictions.How can scientific predictions be made without being based on the inductive conclusion that natural phenomenon will behave in the future as they have been observed to behave thus far? As I see it, evolution is a pragmatic system - selecting what works. If you are going to insist that pragmatism involves making inductive predictions about the future, then you are implicitly saying that evolution depends on inductive predictions of the future. That agrees with the ID position that it would require intelligence so is not explained by natural selection. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
quote: quote: What was really about concepts and not about facts? Why is 'it' relevant to a discussion about Newton and science and induction (which is very much about facts)? You initially stated that
quote: I said Newton did the measuring using pendulums. You retorted "it" was really about concepts not facts and then 1 post later tell me that Newton was all about facts. I think my 'gross misunderstanding' of such a confusing thread of discussion is entirely warranted.
However, we very much disagree on how science works. We very much disagree on "fact". At this stage, we should probably just agree to disagree. We'll have to if you insist on remaining so mysterious. Could you for example, explain what evidence is for in science and how it isn't employed with induction in the same way that 'all swans are white' is (based on the evidence that all known swans are white)?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2697 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Nwr.
nwr writes: To get back to my point, it seems to me that scientists make predictions, but science as an institution does not. But, I don't think Straggler was saying this: I think he was using anthropomorphic language to say, "The scientific method requires one to make predictions." -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024