Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Induction and Science
Stephen Push
Member (Idle past 4859 days)
Posts: 140
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 286 of 744 (591592)
11-14-2010 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by nwr
11-14-2010 7:26 PM


Re: Induction And Science
nwr writes:
The point is that evolution is a natural pragmatic system that works quite well without making predictions of the future. And sure, occasionally there are failures, as when a species goes extinct. But, for the most part, it works.
You apparently have a teleological view of evolution. It's OK to call evolution "pragmatic" in an metaphorical sense, but evolution in not actually pragmatic. It is an unplanned process that mindlessly follows physical laws. Extinctions are not failures; they are just part of the process. To say "it works" is an anthropocentric concept. Nature has no interest in whether it "works" or not; it just is.
Because evolution is a mindless process, of course it doesn't use inductive reasoning or make predictions. Evolutionary biologists use inductive reasoning and make predictions. The ability to make predictions and test them is a hallmark of science.
Edited by Stephen Push, : No reason given.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by nwr, posted 11-15-2010 12:01 AM Stephen Push has replied

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


Message 287 of 744 (591597)
11-14-2010 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by Stephen Push
11-14-2010 10:50 PM


Re: Induction And Science
Stephen Push writes:
What do you make of the fact the Newton said he used inductive reasoning to develop his laws of motion?
I haven't tried reading Newton's actual writings.
It is up to a scientist to do the science. It isn't required that a scientist be able to present the philosophical principles behind how it works. Many scientists think they are doing induction, but that does not prove that they are.
Edited by nwr, : typo

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Stephen Push, posted 11-14-2010 10:50 PM Stephen Push has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Stephen Push, posted 11-15-2010 1:54 AM nwr has replied

  
Stephen Push
Member (Idle past 4859 days)
Posts: 140
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 288 of 744 (591598)
11-14-2010 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by nwr
11-14-2010 10:12 PM


Re: Induction And Science
nwr writes:
If our world were totally homogeneous, then that would make it perfectly consistent (in some sense). From a mathematical point of view, it would be highly patterned. It would look the same no matter how you looked at it. That's a case of multiple symmetries, about as ideally patterned as you can get.
In such a world our science would be useless. It would be as if we were in a very dense fog all the time, unable to see anything. What we need is contrast. Science needs a lumpy world, not a highly patterned world.
If the world were totally homogeneous, there wouldn't be any science because we wouldn't exist.
You are confusing two different uses of the word "consistent." Scientists assume that the laws of nature operate consistently in different places and at different times. They make no assumption that the phenomena caused by those laws will be consistent. You are correct that the world is lumpy. When consistent laws act on a lumpy world you get a different pattern of lumps.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by nwr, posted 11-14-2010 10:12 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by nwr, posted 11-15-2010 12:12 AM Stephen Push has replied

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


Message 289 of 744 (591599)
11-15-2010 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by Stephen Push
11-14-2010 11:18 PM


Re: Induction And Science
Stephen Push writes:
You apparently have a telological view of evolution.
Not at all.
Stephen Push writes:
It's OK to call evolution "pragmatic" in an metaphorical sense, but evolution in not actually pragmatic.
It seems pragmatic to me.
Pragmatic is doing what works, and the natural selection is basically eliminating what doesn't work. If you want to say that doesn't count because the evolving populations aren't actually thinking about whether it works for them, then I suppose you have a point. But that seems excessively fussy.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Stephen Push, posted 11-14-2010 11:18 PM Stephen Push has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Stephen Push, posted 11-15-2010 12:28 AM nwr has replied

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


Message 290 of 744 (591600)
11-15-2010 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by Stephen Push
11-14-2010 11:59 PM


Re: Induction And Science
Stephen Push writes:
If the world were totally homogeneous, there wouldn't be any science because we wouldn't exist.
I agree with that. But my point still holds, that science needs a lumpy world, not a highly patterned world.
Stephen Push writes:
You are confusing two different uses of the word "consistent." Scientists assume that the laws of nature operate consistently in different places and at different times.
However, the weather does not work consistently in different places and different times.
I'm saying that science does not require such an assumption.
Stephen Push writes:
They make no assumption that the phenomena caused by those laws will be consistent.
Well, now you will have to explain what "laws of nature" means to you. When that came up in Message 215, I was told that it refers to natural phenomena. You seem to mean something different.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Stephen Push, posted 11-14-2010 11:59 PM Stephen Push has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Stephen Push, posted 11-15-2010 1:27 AM nwr has replied

  
Stephen Push
Member (Idle past 4859 days)
Posts: 140
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 291 of 744 (591601)
11-15-2010 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by nwr
11-15-2010 12:01 AM


Re: Induction And Science
nwr writes:
Pragmatic is doing what works, and the natural selection is basically eliminating what doesn't work. If you want to say that doesn't count because the evolving populations aren't actually thinking about whether it works for them, then I suppose you have a point. But that seems excessively fussy.
Again, if you were speaking metaphorically, there would be no problem. But in an earlier post, in which you tried to refute Straggler's argument by linking it to ID, you said:
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.
In that quote, you must be using the term "pragmatic" literally, because you say that if we equate pragmatism with induction, then evolution must "depend on inductive predictions." That is teleological. Imputing ends to the evolutionary process in the essence of ID.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by nwr, posted 11-15-2010 12:01 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by nwr, posted 11-15-2010 2:43 PM Stephen Push has replied

  
Stephen Push
Member (Idle past 4859 days)
Posts: 140
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 292 of 744 (591605)
11-15-2010 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by nwr
11-15-2010 12:12 AM


Re: Induction And Science
nwr writes:
However, the weather does not work consistently in different places and different times.
I'm saying that science does not require such an assumption.
The weather is a phenomenon, not a law. Scientists assume that laws work consistently. But when you have different starting conditions, consistent laws will produce different outcomes. In the meterology example, different places and different times constitute different starting conditions.
Well, now you will have to explain what "laws of nature" means to you. When that came up in Message 215, I was told that it refers to natural phenomena. You seem to mean something different.
I see the source of the confusion. Sometimes the words "law" and "phenomenon" are used synonymously. As I am using these terms, a "law" of gravity and a "phenomenon" of gravity are two different things. Newton's universal law of gravitation and the Einstein field equations are laws; an apple falling to the ground and gravitational lensing are phenomena.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by nwr, posted 11-15-2010 12:12 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by nwr, posted 11-15-2010 2:47 PM Stephen Push has replied

  
Stephen Push
Member (Idle past 4859 days)
Posts: 140
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 293 of 744 (591606)
11-15-2010 1:54 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by nwr
11-14-2010 11:54 PM


Re: Induction And Science
nwr writes:
I haven't tried reading Newton's actual writings.
It is up to a scientist to do the science. It isn't required that a scientist be able to present the philosophical principles behind how it works. Many scientists think they are doing induction, but that does not prove that they are.
All true. But given that Newton made the effort to explain his process, it seems to me that it would be fair to give him the benefit of the doubt until we have good reasons to reject his account.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by nwr, posted 11-14-2010 11:54 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by nwr, posted 11-15-2010 2:53 PM Stephen Push has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 294 of 744 (591614)
11-15-2010 5:25 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by nwr
11-14-2010 9:12 PM


Re: Induction And Science
nwr writes:
The question asks whether a variable has some constancy.
No.
A specific pattern is defined and fixed.
"a combination of qualities, acts, tendencies, etc., forming a consistent or characteristic arrangement."
This is the normal meaning of pattern when discussing seasons and weather.
Summers are consistantly warmer than winters (in the northern hemisphere).
Now, answer the question or retract your initial comment.
Panda writes:
So...the unchanging pattern of summers being hotter and winters being colder (in the northern hemisphere) has no constancy?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by nwr, posted 11-14-2010 9:12 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by nwr, posted 11-15-2010 2:58 PM Panda has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
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 Newton’s universal law of gravitation applies only to those specific cases where we have actually observed specific masses interacting in this way. You don’t 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 replied

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

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 296 of 744 (591652)
11-15-2010 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by Straggler
11-15-2010 9:07 AM


Re: Induction And Science
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?
What is it about 'predictions' ('logical consequences') that make them impossible given non-inductive reasoning?
Is it possible to make any scientific conclusion pertaining to any future event without that "assumption"?
What is a 'scientific conclusion'? How does it relate to 'knowledge'?
Do we not "know" when eclipses are going to occur?
No.
Jon

Check out Apollo's Temple!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Straggler, posted 11-15-2010 9:07 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Panda, posted 11-15-2010 11:50 AM Jon has replied
 Message 304 by Straggler, posted 11-15-2010 1:06 PM Jon has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 297 of 744 (591657)
11-15-2010 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by Jon
11-15-2010 11:33 AM


Re: Induction And Science
Jon writes:
Straggler writes:
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?
What is it about 'predictions' ('logical consequences') that make them impossible given non-inductive reasoning?
What makes you think that 'predictions' are the same as 'logical consequences'?
Jon writes:
Straggler writes:
Is it possible to make any scientific conclusion pertaining to any future event without that "assumption"?
What is a 'scientific conclusion'? How does it relate to 'knowledge'?
Why do you think that a 'scientific conclusion' is not related to 'knowledge'?
Jon writes:
Straggler writes:
Do we not "know" when eclipses are going to occur?
No.
Yes.
Jon, do you really think that there is any point to what you posted?
You answered 2 questions with 2 more questions and then just asserted "No".

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by cavediver, posted 11-15-2010 12:36 PM Panda has seen this message but not replied
 Message 300 by Jon, posted 11-15-2010 12:36 PM Panda has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 298 of 744 (591663)
11-15-2010 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by Straggler
11-13-2010 10:22 AM


Re: All Axioms Are Equal But Some Are More Equal Than Others
Good grief!
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?
As I've said before, I never claimed anything about the 'validity' of axioms or premises. I do not use 'validity' in this way; I've already explained this. Why continue to ignore this and pretend as if I've made claims I've never made?
You cannot. Not without contradicting your own argument.
Jeesh, Straggler. Read my argument for what it says and stop making shit up.
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?
This has nothing to do with my argument. Axioms needn't be defended; and as far as I am concerned, the application of the word 'valid' to an axiom or premise is a misrepresentation of my position. I've already explained this.
The fact is you have arrived at your axioms inductively and then used your litte logic exercise to "prove" the opposite.
LOL. Whatever, Straggler. Axioms are, by definition, derived from nothing.
You have done the equivalent of writing the paradoxical statement "This sentence is not true".
Of course I haven't. But, by never once attempting to read what I have written, I can see why it's easy for you to think I have.
Now stop skirting and start addressing the things you've been avoiding.
Jon

Check out Apollo's Temple!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Straggler, posted 11-13-2010 10:22 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by Straggler, posted 11-15-2010 12:54 PM Jon has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 299 of 744 (591668)
11-15-2010 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by Panda
11-15-2010 11:50 AM


Re: Induction And Science
Jon, do you really think that there is any point to what you posted?
You answered 2 questions with 2 more questions and then just asserted "No".
Haven't you sussed out Jon yet? "He" is just an Eliza program left running and we're seeing how long it takes Straggler to notice...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Panda, posted 11-15-2010 11:50 AM Panda has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by Jon, posted 11-15-2010 12:43 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 300 of 744 (591669)
11-15-2010 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by Panda
11-15-2010 11:50 AM


Re: Induction And Science
What makes you think that 'predictions' are the same as 'logical consequences'?
My reply was to Straggler, who has previously asserted that 'predictions' are 'logical consequences':
quote:
Straggler in Message 174 in Science: A Method not a Source:
All scientific predictions are the logically derived consequences of a theory ...
I was merely replying to Straggler using his own words. I will not attempt to defend his position.
Why do you think that a 'scientific conclusion' is not related to 'knowledge'?
I never claimed it was or it wasn't. I merely asked a question.
Jon writes:
Straggler writes:
Do we not "know" when eclipses are going to occur?
No.
Yes.
Good. Now, how do you know?
You answered 2 questions with 2 more questions and then just asserted "No".
A careful look will reveal a third question
Jon

Check out Apollo's Temple!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Panda, posted 11-15-2010 11:50 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by Panda, posted 11-15-2010 12:56 PM Jon 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