Induction and Science

Deductively.Jon

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!

Huh? When did I mention my conclusion as superior? Did you only wish I had? Never made that argument. Perhaps you only wish I had. Not really. You clearly wish it did, though. Not sure; but I like leaving open possibilities. No, Straggler. Once again, it is an axiom; it is derived from nothing. Why is this so hard to understand? Or so you've observed. Nope. There aren't any; you're just unable to spot the silliness of saying: 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. You don't gather information from the world by any means other than observation (per the empirical foundations of science, the topic of this thread). 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, thus your argument is just circular and pointless. And we have no reason to believe our (non-)observances will have no impact on nature unless we accept the following assumption: The observance or non-observance of something will not impact its nature, w/ some exceptions.It's pretty simple, really. You wish!Jon

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!

What is your basis for this view of "conventional wisdom"?I don't agree that scientists treat level 2 as a black box. Tinkering with level 2 is essential to experimental science. I don't know much about AI. Which natural scientists do you believe are ignoring level 2? Induction is implicit in the practice of science at level 2. For instance, if I perform an experiment in sensory perception on N individuals of a certain species, I am assuming that their abilitiies will be representative of all members of the species. What do you mean by pragmatism? Are you referring to Rorty's views? That's what all experimental scientists do. That sounds inconsistent to me. Newton has clearly stated that he developed his laws by induction. If you claim that induction doesn't operate at level 2, how can you also claim Newton's laws are being used to reconfigure level 2?If Newton's laws are not based on induction, on what are they based?

False.To know whether scientists actually use inductive reasoning would require mind reading. Neither of us has evidence on that. I'm well aware that many scientists believe that laws of nature are universal. I don't think I have ever attempted to refute assertions about what scientists believe. I am not confusing anything. I have been pointing out that "consistent" was being used in a very vague fashion, and I have been giving examples to illustrate that vagueness.I can't answer vague arguments, for those arguments metamorphose into something different from what I thought I was answering.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

In that excerpt from Principia, Newton is talking about the method that he used to derive his laws and that he proposes as a model for what would later come to be known as science. He describes the very inductive method you seem to believe has no value in science.

You seem to have missed the word "there" in what I wrote. I have emboldened it this time, to make it easier for you to find.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

You have not come to the conclusion that "all Crowes are wearing black shoes". You have come to the conclusion that it would be absurd, on the information given, to conclude that all Crowes are wearing black shoes.What you typed first as a supposed "conclusion" was just something you put there in order to make your case that inductive logic is absurd.You then infer, by very similar bad inductive reasoning to that which gave you the faked conclusion, that because your faked "conclusion" which "nobody would jump to" is "absurd", this leads to the general conclusion that inductive reasoning is no use to science.So, let's examine why you came to the very reasonable conclusion that it would be absurd to come to your fake "conclusion".Your three observations are about the real world, so they don't happen in a void. But even if treated as being in a void of other information, it would be absurd to come to any conclusions at all (most people might wear black shoes, or it might be very rare). If not treated as being in a void, it's easy to make the observation that wearing black shoes is common, and there's no explanation other than that required for your observations.Good scientists will use any relevant information available to them, which is why they can make inductive reasoning work to good effect.Outside formal science, most of us use it to good effect most of the time. We would be likely to die at a young age if we didn't do so.It's unavoidable.

False.However, if you would like to make a purely deductive argument, using only things I have said as premises, then I shall attempt to find the flaw in your argument (a flaw that perhaps involves smuggling in additional unstated assumptions). I already answered that in Message 513 of the Peanut Gallery thread. I suspect we are talking past one another here.

• Do individual scientists notice apparent patterns in the world, and can that noticing of apparent patterns be called induction? Yes.
• Does science, itself, depend on induction? No.

If the individual scientist got his idea in a dream, or in a surprise package he found under the Christmas tree, instead of from observing an apparent pattern, that would make no difference as to whether science incorporated that idea. It's the value of the idea that matters, not whether the individual scientist came up with that idea via induction. 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.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

No mind-reading necessary:

• Scientists tell us they use inductive reasoning.
• Philosophers of science tell us scientists use inductive reasoning.
• Many examples of scientific laws and theories cited in this thread require inductive reasoning to justify their claims of universality.

As far as I know, you and Jon are the only ones making the claim that scientists don't use inductive reasoning. And from what I've seen so far, niether of you has provided any compelling evidence to support your remarkable claim. I noticed you mentioned a few philosophers, but I didn't see any references to specific writings of theirs that support your claim.If I've missed something, please help me out.

And it makes that case quite well.If you want to say that we use induction, but only after pruning out all of the absurd cases, then that is at least closer to what we do. But "induction", as usually described, does not include any filter for pruning out absurdities.If you want to have something like induction that is actually useful, then it would need to include suitable absurdity pruning as part of the definition of that "something like induction".Science is systematic. If we use an induction on the color of crows, at least part of why that seems to work is because of the systematic nature of our naming conventions for birds. We are not nearly as systematic in our naming of people.Part of what I am arguing in this thread, is that a lot of what is credited to induction should instead be credited to the systematicity of science.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

Whether scientists say that they use inductive reasoning, and whether they actually use inductive reasoning, are two different questions.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

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? 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. 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. Then your conclusion is ultimately derived from nothing and is thus bullshit. My conclusion however is derived inductively as explained below. Indeed. It has never done anything else in my experience. Inductively I conclude that it never will. Yep. Yes it is. If everytime I woke up the world and it’s 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? That isn’t what I said now is it? See above. 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. 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. Then your little exercise in logic has been falsified by the terms of your own challenge.

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.

I missed nothing, but nice attempt to avoid the issue again. Not.. "When science" but 'if science'.Would you like to deal with my argument? You know the part where science is never just operating at level 2. That to be called science you need to include Levels 1 and 3. And it is at this point induction comes in. You can keep pointing at parts of science where you think induction doesn't take place - but other than as a case of confirmation bias it isn't really useful; the rest of us are talking about the part where it does and you are steadfastly refusing to address it.Let's look at your comments again about level 2:

quote:

---

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.

---

The conventional wisdom is that the important bits are treating the three levels in a certain way. Do it one way, it's science. Do it another, it's not science.

quote:

---

My view is that much of science actually takes place at level 2.

---

We don't disagree. But, once again by focussing on level 2, by your own admission you are necessarily ignoring the parts where induction might come in. Let's focus on 3 - which is the topic of the debate, yes? Have you wondered why we've been giving you examples of USING the data? Like using the data of observed swans to inductively conclude that all swans are white.

quote:

---

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.

---

But your clause 'if science is acting at level 2', is false. Science is not acting at level 2 - science is a process that utilises all three levels, only doing 1 of them and we're not talking about science. Your dogged insistence of evading this concept is quite startling - but isn't helping you beyond rhetoric.And we're talking about the stuff that connects level 2 to level 1 by way of level 3...where induction comes into play. And you keep insisting we should talk about level 2 and not about 1 and 3.Let's talk about level 1 and 3.

quote:

---

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.

---

They maybe a 'reconfiguration of level 2' (incidentally aren't you the guy that said "It is how philosophers claim that science works. But most philosophers do not actually do science, so have no basis for making such assertions."? Newton was a philosopher that did science and he disagrees with you - will you not take the hint?) but when Newton went beyond that reconfiguration and said that this his reconfiguration is a universal principle that applies to level 1 - was he not applying level 3 thinking to the level 2 stuff to draw a universal conclusion about level 1?