Induction and Science

They are not merely human constructs. They are human constructs that more or less accurately describe and predict certain aspects of nature.

Well, that's not what you said in the posts I quoted. But if that's what you're saying now, OK. What does that have to do with the topic under discussion?

I don't have a problem with that. But I think we have wandered away from whatever point it was that you were originally trying to make.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

You missed my attempt at irony. Ask Straggler, since he's the one who kept insisting that I had to be looking ahead.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

Let me try a fresh start. Level 1: At this level we have the world, or physical reality, or whatever you want to call it. We presume it to exist independently of humans, except to the extent that we change it (building roads, for example). Level 2: At Level 2, something generates data about the world. For the moment, it doesn't matter much whether by data, we are talking of neural impulses, descriptions, observations. Level 3: At this level we use the data. All of our ordinary conversations are made at this level.Presumably, the point of science is to learn more about level 1.The conventional wisdom seems to assume that we can treat level 2 as a fixed mechanical black box that we can ignore (because it is fixed), and thus does not pay any attention to it other than to assume it is there. Everything important seems to be assumed to happen at level 3. This is most apparent with AI (artificial intelligence) and with talk of the form "the brain is a computer".My view is that much of science actually takes place at level 2. Roughly speaking, you can think of it as tweaking the mechanism in that "black box", adjusting some of the levers, or occasionally doing some major reconfiguration of that mechanism. That leaves level 2 as not fixed after all, and therefore we cannot ignore it.By definition, induction is something done exclusively at level 3. So if science is acting at level 2, then what it does there cannot be inductive. However, pragmatism can apply to level 2 - adjust the mechanisms at level 2 so that the descriptions at level 3 work better.What I have been consistently saying in our discussion of Newton's laws, is how they are being used as a reconfiguration of level 2. Somehow, the people debating with me have been completely oblivious to that, probably because they are strongly committed to the conventional wisdom.Back to your question - Omphalism does nothing at level 2, except argue that it can ignore some of the data. That's why it is not science.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

I have. I've read dozens of your posts in this thread, and I've offered my critique of your position.You say you haven't read Newton, but you seem to dismiss his position out of hand. You might want to read his Rules of Reasoning and tell us where you think he has gone wrong.Edited by Stephen Push, : No reason given.

In that text, he appears to be only talking about something broad and imprecise, not about his precise mathematical laws.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

I had been talking about that 'broad and imprecise' thing that Newton called 'experimental philosophy' throughout this thread - we call it science today. Have you been talking about mathematics all this time? That would explain a lot.

This is the point I had made: Scientists, using inductive reasoning, hold that the laws of nature are universal. You attempted to refute that position by saying the the weather is not "consistent." You are confusing universal (or "consistent") causes with variable (or "inconsistent") effects that result when the universal laws act on different starting conditions.Using your weather example, summers are warmer than winters because the northern hemisphere is tilted toward the sun during the summer. The relationship between temperture and the amount of solar energy striking the surface of the northern hemisphere is consistent throughout the seasons. Of course, that's a simplification, since the temperture is also affected by such things as ocean currents and the build up of greenhouse gases. Meterologists would have to apply several laws to develop a reasonably accurate model.Edited by Stephen Push, : No reason given.Edited by Stephen Push, : No reason given.Edited by Stephen Push, : No reason given.Edited by Stephen Push, : No reason given.

Well, it didn't take long for the hypocrisy to shine through...Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

I'm going to assume that what you just said made sense. We can worry about the rough edges later. We're not being completely oblivious nwr, you are just being a patronising asshole that believes we're being oblivious and translating what we are saying to help preserve the myth that we're being oblivious.. Actually, we were just using normal English. Translating into nwr philosophical bibble babble:Newton 'reconfigures' level 2 (observes stuff and has neural impulses about those observations), then moves to level 3 to put that reconfiguration to use. That use is to make universal statements about level 1. Scientists actually use the data, so they must use level 3, and since the entire point of science is "to learn more about level 1.", I think we've established your deduction that science cannot be inductive is invalid.If you are only doing stuff at level 2, you aren't doing science.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

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 it’s very definition a universal principle is a conclusion that has been extrapolated to apply beyond those instances actually observed.Universal principles such as Newton’s third law or Newton’s 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?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? 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"? We extrapolate the law of gravitation derived from observations to situations that have not been directly observed. How is this not induction? 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. You get to universal principles via the scientific method. Which as I have made clear previously incorporates aspects of both induction and deduction. 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. 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.

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?

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? 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. 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 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?

Huh? Do you actually plan to participate here, or are you just interested in attempting pot shots from the sidelines? If you've a point to make with all this, just make it.Jon

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!