|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Induction and Science | |||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Stephen Push writes:
Whether scientists say that they use inductive reasoning, and whether they actually use inductive reasoning, are two different questions.Scientists tell us they use inductive reasoning. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Modulous writes:
What's to deal with? I never claimed that science is only operating at level 2.
Would you like to deal with my argument? You know the part where science is never just operating at level 2. Modulous writes:
Can't you tell that the alleged "swans" induction is a made up story? When was "all swans are white" ever a part of science?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. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Straggler writes:
I guess you don't understand the meaning of the word "standard".
Your standard appears to only to apply as a method of organising existing observations into a logical and efficient manner. Straggler writes:
Because that's what a standard is.It doesn’t appear to be able to say anything about why we should expect future observations to conform to that standard Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Straggler writes:
You only confirm that you don't know what 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? Suppose I go out and perform an experiment, but I choose not to follow standards. My experiment refutes Newton's laws of motion. Will you conclude that Newton was wrong? Or will you conclude that my evidence is no good because I failed to follow the standards?
Straggler writes:
Irrelevant.
Unless you are inductively concluding that nature will continue to behave as observed thus far why would your standard apply to any new observations? Straggler writes:
The standards apply to us. We don't expect nature to observe our standards. We expect ourselves to follow the standards.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? Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Straggler writes:
The standard applies to existing observations, as long as we followed the standard in making those observations. The standard will apply to future observations as long as we follow the standard when making future observations.If the standard is to apply to future observations of nature in the same way that it applies to existing obsevations then you must be implicitly assuming that nature itself will in the future behave in a manner that is consistent with past behaviour. Are you from Mars, or from somewhere outside of the Milky Way galaxy You are pontificating about science, but sounding as if you haven't a clue as to how science is actually done. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
New Cat's Eye writes: But the F can't be anything other than the m times the a because that's what it is defined as being. Straggler writes:
You are thinking like a creationist.Can't be? Are you saing that nature cannot be applying forces that are proportional to the mass squared elsewhere in the universe because our theory simply won't allow that to occur? In the beginning God created force, mass and acceleration. And God saw that it was good. You are quite clueless as to how science works. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
nwr writes: The standard will apply to future observations as long as we follow the standard when making future observations. Straggler writes:
Nature isn't being required to comply with anything.And why would you expect nature to comply with your standard in these future observations? Take a class in science, maybe a freshman physics class. Be sure to include the lab class. Maybe you might learn something. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Straggler writes:
No.Do you think that our theories define or reflect reality Nwr? Well, okay, some of our theories might partly reflect reality. However, the best of our theories do neither.
Straggler writes:
Nature doesn't give a damn about our standards.
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? Straggler writes:
Standards are not about nature. Standards are about us. New observations will be in accordance with the standards, as long as we observe the standards when making our observations. They are called standards because they standardize how we make our observations.
This standard that has been constructed is completely worthless if new observations do not conform to it isn’t it? Straggler writes:
That's bullshit. The standards have nothing to say about how nature behaves. They are about how we should behave, in order to make observations.But unless you are inductively conclude that nature will continue to behave as observed thus far why would your standard apply to any new observations? You really ought to learn something about science before you pontificate about it. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
nwr writes: Nature isn't being required to comply with anything. Straggler writes:
Are you always this absurd?Talk about change the question!!! I didn't ask what was "required". I'll restate my previous answer as "Nature isn't being expected to comply with anything."
Straggler writes:
I answered the question. You are apparently too ignorant to be able to see that.It seems that you are unable to answer the question actually put to you without refuting yourself. So, okay, I have given a reworded answer. Now go learn something about science. Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Panda writes:
I recommend the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, but I don't know whether it is available online. There's probably a copy in the reference section of your local library.Could you please post some links to web sites that directly refer to these 'standards', so that I may understand what you are talking about? Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
nwr writes: Suppose I go out and perform an experiment, but I choose not to follow standards. My experiment refutes Newton's laws of motion. Will you conclude that Newton was wrong? Or will you conclude that my evidence is no good because I failed to follow the standards? Stephen Push writes:
I'm going to use the metric system, except I will use local time instead of internationally standardized time. That is, I will take noon to be the time when the sun appears to be at its highest point (or in a direct north/south direction). I will take the time interval between two consecutive noons, and divide that into 24 local hours. I will then further divide those local hours into local minutes and local seconds.It doesn't matter what standards you use, as long as you are consistent. You cannot state the hypothesis in dynes and report the result in newtons, unless you apply the appropriate conversion factor. Regardless of what standard you use, if your methodology was flawless, if your results contradict Newton's laws of motion, and if your results can be replicated, then we must conlcude that Newton was wrong. With careful measurement, and using that local time as my standard, I should be able to show that the rotation of the earth is speeding up and slowing down, but there is no known force that would explain such speeding up and slowing down. Should Newton's laws be rejected, or should my data be rejected? Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
I have a very very old edition (1960s vintage).
There should be a section where it defines physical properties such as force. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Usually "standard" is used for defining particular units of measurement. I'm just using the same idea in a unit free sense. New Cat's Eye seems to be understanding the word in the same sense, so I don't think there is anything particularly confusing about that. If you prefer the word "definition" instead of "standard", that's a different way of saying the same thing. Definitions are standards.
Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Panda writes:
You are probably correct, but it isn't actually relevant.
Newton did not base his observations on his definitions. Panda writes:
His laws are not descriptions of a falling apple.
He observered the apple falling before describing the apple falling. Panda writes:
No, I don't think that, and I haven't suggested that.
Again, you seem to think that scientists make definitions prior to making observations. Panda writes:
The swan example is made up, so it is artificial. However, I'll use that to try to explain more clearly. But since it is an artificial example, I will be artificial in how I use it.You observe lots of white swans before claiming that all swans are white. You do not observe lots of white swans because you decided that all swans are white. What first would have happened, is that people observed a bunch of white birds. They didn't observe any swans, because at first "swan" was not a word used for those birds. Perhaps, after seeing those white birds, they decided to name them "swans". And maybe they gave a precise definition of swan, something like: A swan is a bird which
Suppose, instead, that they did not include the third requirement in that definition. If they then concluded that "all swans are white", it would be reasonable to say that it was an inductive concusion. And they could even go back to the observations made before "swan" was thus defined, and count them as evidence for the induction (provided that the observations were of birds that meet the new definition of "swan"). The problem for inductionists, however, is that scientists do not seem to have any inclination to make such inductions. As best I can tell, there is not a single conclusive example of an actual induction that has been presented in this discussion. Science mainly works by making precise definitions, by using those definitions as standards for observations, and by using those definitions as premises in deductive reasoning. And, yes, they make observations before they come up with those precise definitions, with those preliminary observation being used to guide them in how they formulate the definitions. We can look at a non-artificial example. I'll suggest Boyle's law. It could be said that it resulted from an induction, though I personally suspect that it came from a theoretical analysis with a few observations used to back up the analysis. The thing about Boyle's law, is that as applied to ordinary gases it is false and well known to be false. It is important because, although false, it is actually a pretty good approximation. It is one of the "ideal gas laws", meaning that it mainly treated a true statement about imaginary ideal gases. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Stephen Push writes:
If we measure using standard time, then the length of a local solar day is not 24 hours. It changes throughout the year, by around 1%. So if we were to local solar time to measure the rotation speed of the earth, then that speed would vary throughout the year by around 1%.What exactly are you measuring? The point to notice here, is that you cannot have laws such as Newton's without basing them on precisely defined standards. And in this case, the natural standard for time (i.e. local solar time) is not compatible with Newton's laws.
Stephen Push writes:
It isn't changing by anything close to 1%, and earthquakes can actually cause it to speed up.Actually, Earth's rotation is slowing down. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024