|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Induction and Science | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
"He" is just an Eliza program left running and we're seeing how long it takes Straggler to notice... Ha Ha! But I've come so far since then! Check out Apollo's Temple!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3712 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Jon writes:
Ok. Then here's my question: I never claimed it was or it wasn't. I merely asked a question.Do you think that a 'scientific conclusion' is not related to 'knowledge'? Please explain how you came to your answer. Jon writes:
Hmm...I am having trouble following your equivocation. No.
Panda writes:
Good. Now, how do you know?
Yes. Did you actually mean:Now, how do you "know"? or perhaps Now, how do you know? When you are constantly bouncing between the different meanings of words, it becomes very difficult to follow which definition you are currently using.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Stephen Push writes:
You entirely missed the point.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. I am saying that I no more need to be looking ahead than evolution needs to be looking ahead. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Stephen Push writes:
Okay. But then, when used that way, I have already said that I don't consider them "natural laws." I see them as human constructs, not a part of nature.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. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Stephen Push writes:
Perhaps you might consider the possibility that I do have reasons for offering a different account.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. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Panda writes:
I have seen only vague claims that something unspecified is a pattern.A specific pattern is defined and fixed. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Straggler writes:
Quite the contrary. But perhaps you misworded that, and intended to apply it to yourself.
Your problem is that you are looking at scientific conclusions in an ad-hoc manner. Straggler writes:
You cannot get to universal principles via induction. You can at most get to observed patterns.
The genius of people like Newton and Einstein was their ability to see through the mundane and pick out the universal principles. Straggler writes:
If anything, you have that backwards. With induction, we can only make conclusions about the data used in the induction.
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. Straggler 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.
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. Straggler writes:
No, that is not induction. The normal understanding of induction, is that it is deriving a general statement from a number of specific observations. By your own admission, there are no specific observations of planet formation on which to base such an induction.
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? Straggler writes:
I don't believe I have ever made such an argument.
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. nwr writes: Where have I said that we cannot say anything about future events. Straggler writes:
That it is a guess or an opinion does not prevent you from saying it.
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? Straggler writes:
It is a forward extrapolation, beyond known data. There is always uncertainty about such extrapolation. That does not imply that it isn't worth doing. But one should be aware that uncertainty is involved.
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? Straggler writes:
Prediction does not lead to discovery. If anything, it is discovery that leads to prediction.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? As for the rest of that - I might comment in another post. It doesn't fit well with this post. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
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. Of course, Bill's epistemology is irrelevant in this thread. As I've explained already.
Well I used different axioms "derived from nothing" and came to the opposite conclusion to you. As per Message 211 So now what? Now nothing; you've laid out your axioms and I told you what I thought of them. If I agreed with the axiom 'whatever Straggler believes true is true', then I would agree with your argument and conclusion. I do not so agree, however, and I think you will find many others who also do not agree. As such, you'll find few others beside yourself whom will be convinced by your argument. Likewise, my axiom is open to disagreement. You are free to disagree with my axiom if you want; and doing so you will not be convinced of my argument. So, instead of arguing hypotheticals (since I know you dislike Bill in truth), why not discuss your actual position? Do you or do you not agree that: The observance or non-observance of something will not impact its nature, w/ some exceptions? Jon Edited by Jon, : so.... Check out Apollo's Temple!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
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.
Jon writes: How does it relate to 'knowledge'? Very well. Care to explain?
Jon writes: 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. You are obviously working with looser criteria for 'knowledge' than am I or nwr. This is fine, so long as you lay out your criteria and demonstrate their relevance to the scientific method. By laying out your position, we will all be better able to understand where you are coming from. Discussion will be more fruitful. Jon Edited by Jon, : extra stuff Check out Apollo's Temple!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2477 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
nwr writes: It is a forward extrapolation, beyond known data. There is always uncertainty about such extrapolation. That does not imply that it isn't worth doing. But one should be aware that uncertainty is involved. Exactly. That's well understood when inductive reasoning is used in science. That's why the tentative conclusions arrived at are stated as theories or laws, rather than facts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Do you think that a 'scientific conclusion' is not related to 'knowledge'? No, they are certainly related.
I am having trouble following your equivocation. There is no equivocation. And putting fancy little lines around your "word" doesn't change its meaning.
When you are constantly bouncing between the different meanings of words, it becomes very difficult to follow which definition you are currently using. Don't be petty. If you mean something special by "know" as opposed to know, then lay it out so you can be understood. No one, though, is interested in word games. Jon Check out Apollo's Temple!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3712 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
Jon writes:
Thank you for the quote. Don't be petty. If you mean something special by "know" as opposed to know, then lay it out so you can be understood. No one, though, is interested in word games.I will use it to remind you to stop being petty and that no-one is interested in word games.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Thank you for the quote. I will use it to remind you to stop being petty and that no-one is interested in word games. Too bad; if only you and Straggler would be willing to address the points instead of popping out silly victory posts like this one all the time, we could all get on to some serious understanding through serious discussion. It's really unfortunate. Jon Edited by Jon, : b - s Check out Apollo's Temple!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024