Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-17-2019 11:23 AM
41 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 853,910 Year: 8,946/19,786 Month: 1,368/2,119 Week: 128/576 Day: 29/99 Hour: 5/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456
...
11Next
Author Topic:   Induction and Science
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 275 of 744 (591549)
11-14-2010 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by nwr
11-13-2010 2:22 PM


Re: hypothesis testing with limited evidence
Newtons third law tells us that a force is not merely something defined as being that which causes a change of velocity. It is a statement of the much more fundamental idea of force as an interaction between bodies. This underpins the logic of the other two laws.

Forces always arrive from interactions. That is what Newton's third law tells us.

We have never observed an acceleration that is not the result of an interaction.
We have never observed an acceleration without a corresponding equal and opposite force acting on an interacting body.
If we did observe an isolated body undergoing an acceleration Newtons laws would have been violated in a fundamental way.

We never have and inductively we conclude that we never will.

Nwr 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.

So in depth evidence based investgation sometimes refutes common sense notions of how the world works.

What is your point?

Nwr writes:

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.

Yes we had to start thinking about the world and how it works in a way that transends everyday common sense notions.

What is your point?

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by nwr, posted 11-13-2010 2:22 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 276 of 744 (591560)
11-14-2010 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by nwr
11-13-2010 3:07 PM


Re: Induction And Science
Nwr writes:

If gravity suddenly stops tomorrow, that just means that predictions for anything beyond that time will be wrong.

ALL of our scientific theories are based on the constancy of natural phenomeon.

When we say we are not saying that this relationship applies only in the past. We are saying that this relationship applies now and into the future.

Hence our ability to scientifically make conclusions about the timing of eclipses and such like. Albeit tentatively.

Nwr writes:

The possibility does not stop us from making predictions.

It's possible that gravity and friction etc. will suddenly stop behaving as observed so far. But all scientific theories are based on the inductive conclusion that they won't. The fact that we can and do apply our theories to future events is based on the inductive conclusion natural phenomen will continue to behave as observed thus far.

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 writes:

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.

It should be noted hat the key difference between genuinely scientific theories and pseudoscience like ID is the ability to successfully predict new observations.

Any fool can construct an internally consistent explanatory theory (look at omphalism) but one that predicts and discovers can be considered genuinely scientific. Ask any IDist what they have doscovered recently if you doubt that.

So don't you dare dismiss the relevance of prediction and then accuse others of advocting creationist style reasoning.

The reason for your intense confusion is that you are looking at this in simplistic black and white terms of science either being wholly inductive or not inductive at all.

Science is neither wholly inductive nor wholly deductive. It comprises elements of both. An inductively reasoned speculative conclusion is drawn. The logical consequences of this are deductively derived (i.e. predictions are made). These predictions are tested. The original inductively derived conclusion is thus either verified or refuted as being in accordance with reality. There is more to it than that regarding tentativity and such matters.

But you hopefully get the gist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by nwr, posted 11-13-2010 3:07 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by nwr, posted 11-14-2010 7:26 PM Straggler has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 295 of 744 (591630)
11-15-2010 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by nwr
11-14-2010 7:26 PM


Re: Induction And Science
Your problem is that you are looking at scientific conclusions in an ad-hoc manner. The genius of people like Newton and Einstein was their ability to see through the mundane and pick out the universal principles. But by their very nature the whole idea of universal principles is inductive because (as the name suggests) it derives universal conclusions from necessarily incomplete evidence.

Nwr writes:

It seems to me that you are projecting an implicit prediction, but most people are not actually making that prediction.

It seems that without induction we cannot conclude that anything we have not actually observed has or will behave in a manner consistent with those things we have observed.

Nwr writes:

It gets hotter in the summer and colder in the winter, which is not constant.

The position of the Earth in relation to the Sun is indisputably what defines our seasons. Try to see beyond the mundane and find the universal principles at play Nwr.

Nwr writes:

We use scientific laws because they work and are useful. Why should we worry about whether they will still be useful next week, when we are concerned with using them today?

It isn't just about "next week" it is about whether our scientific principles and theories can be applied to questions where we have limited observations. Past, present or future. We have never seen a planet or a Sun form. But based on our knowledge of gravity we can say that we "know" how planets and stars form can we not? Is this not induction?

By the terms of your argument Newtons universal law of gravitation applies only to those specific cases where we have actually observed specific masses interacting in this way. You dont think that by calling this a "universal law" science is inductively extrapolating this to tentatively cover all such interactions regardless of when or where they occur?

Nwr writes:

Straggler writes:

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.

Where have I said that we cannot say anything about future events.

You did describe any conclusion based on the "assumption" that physical phenomenon will continue to behave as thus far observed as a "guess" or an "opinion" did you not?

Is it possible to make any scientific conclusion pertaining to any future event without that "assumption"?

Nwr writes:

I only say that we cannot know.

What do you mean by "know"? Are you talking about certainty?

Do we not "know" when eclipses are going to occur? Are we guessing? Is it an opinion? In what sense do we not "know" that doesn't apply to any other tentative scientific conclusion?

Nwr writes:

If you think I am suggesting that science need only produce internally consistent theories, then you are hopelessly confused.

That isn't what I said. But I am intrigued to know how your non-inductive science argument distinguishes between genuine scientific conclusions and things like omphalism if you are going to abandon prediction (leading to discovery) as the key difference?

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by nwr, posted 11-14-2010 7:26 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Jon, posted 11-15-2010 11:33 AM Straggler has responded
 Message 309 by nwr, posted 11-15-2010 3:35 PM Straggler has responded
 Message 320 by nwr, posted 11-15-2010 9:34 PM Straggler has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 302 of 744 (591678)
11-15-2010 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by Jon
11-15-2010 12:18 PM


Re: All Axioms Are Equal But Some Are More Equal Than Others
Jon writes:

Axioms are, by definition, derived from nothing.

Well I used different axioms "derived from nothing" and came to the opposite conclusion to you. As per Message 211

So now what?

Jon writes:

Bill's a smart guy; he uses logic and consistent epistemological axioms to arrive at valid conclusions. I wish others could do the same

I am glad you think so highly of Bill's epistemological methods and conclusions as these were what I was using to come to the opposite conclusion to you.

That's the problem with axiomatic deduction of the silly sort you are advocating. You can pick your axioms and deduce whatever you want to.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Jon, posted 11-15-2010 12:18 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by Jon, posted 11-15-2010 3:53 PM Straggler has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 304 of 744 (591681)
11-15-2010 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by Jon
11-15-2010 11:33 AM


Re: Induction And Science
Jon writes:

What is it about 'predictions' ('logical consequences') that make them impossible given non-inductive reasoning?

To make a scientific prediction you must necessarily first conclude that a given phenomenon will continue as it has been observed to behave thus far.

If you base a prediction on the inverse square law it isn't going to work if gravity suddenly starts operating as an inverse cube law instead now is it?

Jon writes:

What is a 'scientific conclusion'?

An evidentially well founded but still tentative one.

Jon writes:

How does it relate to 'knowledge'?

Very well.

Straggler writes:

Do we not "know" when eclipses are going to occur?

No.

Yet we keep accurately determining when they are going to occur and being demonstrably correct about it.

Go figure.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Jon, posted 11-15-2010 11:33 AM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by Jon, posted 11-15-2010 3:58 PM Straggler has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 327 of 744 (591812)
11-16-2010 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 309 by nwr
11-15-2010 3:35 PM


Universal Principles
Nwr writes:

Straggler writes:

By the terms of your argument Newtons universal law of gravitation applies only to those specific cases where we have actually observed specific masses interacting in this way.

I don't believe I have ever made such an argument.

It is an unavoidable consequence of everything you have said.

Without induction how is it possible to have anything that could even be called a universal principle? By its very definition a universal principle is a conclusion that has been extrapolated to apply beyond those instances actually observed.

Universal principles such as Newtons third law or Newtons law of gravitation are considered to apply in ALL relevant cases. Regardless of where or when and whether or not anyone was actually observing.

How can a universal scientific principle exist without inductive reasoning?

Nwr writes:

It is a forward extrapolation, beyond known data. There is always uncertainty about such extrapolation.

There is always uncertainty in any scientific conclusion whether it relates to the past present or future is there not? What is your point as it applies specifically inductive conclusions pertaining to to future events?

Nwr writes:

That does not imply that it isn't worth doing. But one should be aware that uncertainty is involved.

Uncertainty is always involved in any scientific conclusion. Are you revoking your previous assertion that any inductively derived conclusion about future events was an "opinion" or a "guess"?

Nwr writes:

By your own admission, there are no specific observations of planet formation on which to base such an induction.

We extrapolate the law of gravitation derived from observations to situations that have not been directly observed. How is this not induction?

Nwr writes:

Well, for sure, the Earth is closest to the Sun when it is midwinter in these parts. So I guess you are saying that we can make an induction and claim that planet Mercury is colder than earth because it is closer to the sun. Yes, induction surely is great, and especially so when it results in such important principles.

If you did spectacularly fail to factor in the other considerations and make that inductive conclusion you would of course falsify this when this initial wholly inductive and speculative conclusion was tested as per the scientific method. The scientific method tests conclusions partly because of the very fact that induction is an imperfect tool.

But your idea that science is induction free because induction cannot be guaranteed to lead to correct conclusions is silly. It ignores the other aspects of the scientific method.

Nwr writes:

You cannot get to universal principles via induction.

You get to universal principles via the scientific method. Which as I have made clear previously incorporates aspects of both induction and deduction.

Nwr writes:

Prediction does not lead to discovery. If anything, it is discovery that leads to prediction.

Predictions indisputably have led to discoveries. See Message 132. But it is a two way street and the interflow between the two is how science often progresses.

Nwr writes:

It is a forward extrapolation, beyond known data.

Yes - And that is what a "universal principle" in science is. Practically by definition. By the terms of your "induction-free-science" argument genuinely scientific universal principles are an impossibility. Yet they exist.

Thus you are refuted.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by nwr, posted 11-15-2010 3:35 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 339 by nwr, posted 11-16-2010 12:04 PM Straggler has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 328 of 744 (591814)
11-16-2010 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 320 by nwr
11-15-2010 9:34 PM


Re: Induction And Science
None of this explains how science can derive what are considered to be universal laws/principles from necessarily incomplete data.

That unavoidably requires a degree of inductive reasoning does it not?

If NOT - Then how?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by nwr, posted 11-15-2010 9:34 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 331 by Jon, posted 11-16-2010 10:25 AM Straggler has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 329 of 744 (591820)
11-16-2010 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 310 by Jon
11-15-2010 3:53 PM


Re: All Axioms Are Equal But Some Are More Equal Than Others
Jon writes:

Axioms are, by definition, derived from nothing.

Jon writes:

Now nothing; you've laid out your axioms and I told you what I thought of them.

You are welcome to your subjective opinion. But if you continue to insist that axioms can be subjectively plucked from ones arse in order to deduce whatever one wants to "prove" then there is absolutely no reason to consider your conclusion as superior to mine is there?

Jon writes:

As such, you'll find few others beside yourself whom will be convinced by your argument.

If you think I am doing anything different to you here you are wrong. I am just being more blatant about it to make a point.

Anyway We have started from different axioms and come to mutually exclusive conclusions. By the terms of your own insane arguments both our mutually exclusive conclusions are equally correct. Go figure.

Jon writes:

Do you or do you not agree that: The observance or non-observance of something will not impact its nature, w/ some exceptions?

How do you know when something will be an exception to this?

Your question amounts to - Do I agree that the observance or non-observance of something may or may not impact it's behaviour? I suppose so

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 observed. Thus we inductively conclude that it did so and will continue to do so.

What are the missing premises here? Or have I falsified your little logic exercise?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by Jon, posted 11-15-2010 3:53 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 333 by Jon, posted 11-16-2010 11:03 AM Straggler has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 343 of 744 (591856)
11-16-2010 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 333 by Jon
11-16-2010 11:03 AM


Help! - I Am A Fire Breathing Jellyfish Who LIves Inside A Cactus
Jon when you wake up tomorrow morning do you think the world and it's workings will show every indication of having continued along the same lines as when you are observing it?

Have you ever woken up to observe anything else?
Do you think you ever will?

Jon writes:

Huh? When did I mention my conclusion as superior? Did you only wish I had?

You described my axioms as bullshit. If ones axioms are bullshit does it not follow that ones deductions are also bullshit? But if you are happy to describe your own conclusions as bullshit I am not going to argue with you.

Jon writes:

Straggler writes:

By the terms of your own insane arguments both our mutually exclusive conclusions are equally correct. Go figure.

Never made that argument. Perhaps you only wish I had.

Could you then explain how you determine which of the two (if either) mutually exclusive conclusions is to be considered correct? If you cannot do this maybe you should concede that your argument necessitates them being equal in this regard. Just as I said.

Jon writes:

Straggler writes:

The conclusion that unobserved phenomenon will behave in the same way as observed phenomenon is itself inductively derived from experience.

No, Straggler. Once again, it is an axiom; it is derived from nothing.

Then your conclusion is ultimately derived from nothing and is thus bullshit. My conclusion however is derived inductively as explained below.

Jon writes:

Straggler writes:

Between periods of observation the world appears to have continued to operate as it did whilst being observed.

Or so you've observed.

Indeed. It has never done anything else in my experience. Inductively I conclude that it never will.

Jon writes:

Straggler writes:

Thus we inductively conclude that it did so and will continue to do so.

Nope.

Yep.

Jon writes:

It's pretty simple, really.

Yes it is. If everytime I woke up the world and its workings had changed beyond all recognition or in a manner that was inconsistent with it operating identically regardless of my observing it I would be unable to make the conclusion that I have.

As things stand this has never happened. Based on this limited set of observations I inductively conclude that the world always behaves in the same way regardless of whether I am observing it or not.

Which part of this is not clear to you?

Jon writes:

I observed that there was no difference when I wasn't observing, thus I observed that I can fail to observe something and it will behave as if unobserved.

That isnt what I said now is it? See above.

Jon writes:

To note the apparent continuation of the world while you were asleep requires an observation; you cannot be in any way informed of the external world without making an observation.

Of course it requires observations. And I think you will find that this is exactly what I have detailed above. If I wake up tomorrow and find that I am a jellyfish who lives inside a cactus and breathes fire (or some other such surreality) my inductive reasoning will have failed me.

I very much doubt this will happen.

Jon writes:

thus your argument is just circular and pointless.

My argument involves making a generalised conclusion from a limited set or observations. This is called inductive reasoning. I think you will find it is your derived from nothing assertions that are pointless.

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.

Jon writes:

Straggler writes:

What are the missing premises here?


There aren't any.

Then your little exercise in logic has been falsified by the terms of your own challenge.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by Jon, posted 11-16-2010 11:03 AM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 354 by Jon, posted 11-16-2010 8:56 PM Straggler has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 344 of 744 (591857)
11-16-2010 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 331 by Jon
11-16-2010 10:25 AM


Re: Induction And Science
Perhaps you can explain specifically how Newton's third law which tells us that ALL forces are the result of interactions (as per Message 275) was arrived at wholly deductively rather than from a limited set of observations.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by Jon, posted 11-16-2010 10:25 AM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by Jon, posted 11-16-2010 10:49 PM Straggler has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 346 of 744 (591862)
11-16-2010 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 311 by Jon
11-15-2010 3:58 PM


"Knowing"
Jon writes:

Straggler writes:

To make a scientific prediction you must necessarily first conclude that a given phenomenon will continue as it has been observed to behave thus far.

Even if true, that has nothing to do with why inductive reasoning might be important to science.

Whether or not we can conclude that the world will continue to operate as it has been previously observed to do so and on which our scientific models and theories are based - Is not important to science?

Jon writes:

You are obviously working with looser criteria for 'knowledge' than am I or nwr.

Well given that Nwr has described the ability to accurately predict eclipses as "opinions" and "guessing" you may well be right.

What are these stringent criteria of yours? Because I suspect your criteria make it impossible for us to ever know anything in practise.

Jon writes:

This is fine, so long as you lay out your criteria and demonstrate their relevance to the scientific method.

I think we can say that we "know" when eclipses will occur. Tentatively. But with enough evidential support and demonstrable reliability of our methods to call this "knowledge" albeit not certainty.

Jon writes:

By laying out your position, we will all be better able to understand where you are coming from. Discussion will be more fruitful.

As has been noted by others it is you appears to be flip-flopping between different definitions of "know" so I suggest that you take your own advice and state exactly what it is you mean.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by Jon, posted 11-15-2010 3:58 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 355 by Jon, posted 11-16-2010 9:01 PM Straggler has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 347 of 744 (591863)
11-16-2010 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 339 by nwr
11-16-2010 12:04 PM


Re: Universal Principles
Straggler writes:

Without induction how is it possible to have anything that could even be called a universal principle?

Nwr writes:

I already answered that in Message 513 of the Peanut Gallery thread.

Your standard appears to only to apply as a method of organising existing observations into a logical and efficient manner. It doesnt appear to be able to say anything about why we should expect future observations to conform to that standard or how we can derive universal principles from incomplete evidence.

Why would you expect future observations to conform to a standard unless you are inductively concluding that the phenomenon in question will operate as thus far observed?

Nwr writes:

It's the value of the idea that matters, not whether the individual scientist came up with that idea via induction.

How do you assess the value of the idea? Bearing in mind that any extrapolation of the idea to cover unobserved instances of a phenomenon necessarily requires you to assume the constancy of said phenomenon. Which is itself an inductive conclusion.

Nwr writes:

Straggler writes:

It is an unavoidable consequence of everything you have said.

False.

Given that you have described any conclusion based on the inductively concluded consistency of natural phenomenon as opinions or guesses some elaboration might have helped here. Not your strong point I know..but.

Nwr writes:

I am denying that the law of gravitation was derived from observations. It might have been partly inspired by observations. But there is no amount of deriving that can get you from reported observations to any of the scientifically asserted laws of gravitation that have been used.

Once again you seem to be basing your argument on an all or nothing black and white idiocy of a conclusion being either wholly inductive or not inductive at all. Nobody here that I am aware of is saying that any highly accepted scientific conclusion was arrived at purely by means of induction. Induction is imperfect and the scientific method of testing conclusions etc. has been constructed at least partly to achieve reliability of conclusion despite that imperfection

Without the observations there would be no law of gravitation. This is surely indisputable? The fact that based on limited observations we have constructed a theory that applies to ALL instances universally would seem to be the very definition of induction. Even if additional steps were taken to ensure reliability.

If you are saying this is not so you need to detail how and why this is not the case with at least one example. Because at the moment all we really have is you asserting Its not induction. Its a standard.

Why would you expect future observations to conform to a standard unless you are inductively concluding that the phenomenon in question will operate as thus far observed?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by nwr, posted 11-16-2010 12:04 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 352 by nwr, posted 11-16-2010 3:33 PM Straggler has responded
 Message 353 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-16-2010 3:41 PM Straggler has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 357 of 744 (591918)
11-17-2010 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 353 by New Cat's Eye
11-16-2010 3:41 PM


Re: Universal Principles
But unless you inductively conclude that nature will continue to behave as observed thus far why would your standard apply to any new observations?

And if this "standard" cannot be said to apply to new and as yet unmade observations how can you call it a "universal principle".

CS writes:

Given a mass, m, with an acceleration, a, the force cannot be anything other than F because that is how F is defined.

Do you think nature cares what the standard is or will behave in accordance with this standard just because we have defined it as a standard?

CS writes:

I'll write another reply that we can argue about, when I find some more time, but I just thought I'd chime in here and try to show you what I thought you were missing.

None of this answers the question of why we should expect future observations of nature to behave in accordance with the standard that has been constructed.

And if this "standard" cannot be said to apply to new and as yet unmade observations how can you call it a "universal principle".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-16-2010 3:41 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 358 of 744 (591919)
11-17-2010 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 352 by nwr
11-16-2010 3:33 PM


Re: Universal Principles
Straggler writes:

Why would you expect future observations to conform to a standard unless you are inductively concluding that the phenomenon in question will operate as thus far observed?

But in characteristic fashion Nwr evades this key question and simply provides the following vaguety:

Nwr writes:

Because that's what a standard is.

Do you really think nature cares what the standard is or will behave in accordance with this standard just because we have defined it as a standard?

Unless you are inductively concluding that nature will continue to behave as observed thus far why would your standard apply to any new observations?

Without induction what reason do you have to expect your standard to apply to anything that has not been directly observed to behave in the standard manner?

Nwr writes:

I guess you don't understand the meaning of the word "standard".

Then rather than evade why don't you answer the questions. Specifically explain how a "standard" can be expected to apply to future observations without first inductively concluding that nature will behave in a manner that is consistent with past observations.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 352 by nwr, posted 11-16-2010 3:33 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 366 by nwr, posted 11-17-2010 7:53 PM Straggler has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 359 of 744 (591920)
11-17-2010 6:36 AM
Reply to: Message 355 by Jon
11-16-2010 9:01 PM


Re: "Knowing"
Jon writes:

I don't claim to know things I've never experienced.

Do you claim to know things you have experienced?

Can you give an example of something that you do know?

Do you think we can all know that your parents had sex wth each other at least once? Although I am sure most of us, inclding you, were not there to experience that particular event.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 355 by Jon, posted 11-16-2010 9:01 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 388 by Jon, posted 11-17-2010 11:47 PM Straggler has responded

  
Prev12
3
456
...
11Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019