Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Induction and Science
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 346 of 744 (591862)
11-16-2010 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 311 by Jon
11-15-2010 3:58 PM


"Knowing"
Jon writes:
Straggler writes:
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.
Whether or not we can conclude that the world will continue to operate as it has been previously observed to do so and on which our scientific models and theories are based - Is not important to science?
Jon writes:
You are obviously working with looser criteria for 'knowledge' than am I or nwr.
Well given that Nwr has described the ability to accurately predict eclipses as "opinions" and "guessing" you may well be right.
What are these stringent criteria of yours? Because I suspect your criteria make it impossible for us to ever know anything in practise.
Jon writes:
This is fine, so long as you lay out your criteria and demonstrate their relevance to the scientific method.
I think we can say that we "know" when eclipses will occur. Tentatively. But with enough evidential support and demonstrable reliability of our methods to call this "knowledge" albeit not certainty.
Jon writes:
By laying out your position, we will all be better able to understand where you are coming from. Discussion will be more fruitful.
As has been noted by others it is you appears to be flip-flopping between different definitions of "know" so I suggest that you take your own advice and state exactly what it is you mean.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by Jon, posted 11-15-2010 3:58 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 355 by Jon, posted 11-16-2010 9:01 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 347 of 744 (591863)
11-16-2010 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 339 by nwr
11-16-2010 12:04 PM


Re: Universal Principles
Straggler writes:
Without induction how is it possible to have anything that could even be called a universal principle?
Nwr writes:
I already answered that in Message 513 of the Peanut Gallery thread.
Your standard appears to only to apply as a method of organising existing observations into a logical and efficient manner. It doesn’t appear to be able to say anything about why we should expect future observations to conform to that standard or how we can derive universal principles from incomplete evidence.
Why would you expect future observations to conform to a standard unless you are inductively concluding that the phenomenon in question will operate as thus far observed?
Nwr writes:
It's the value of the idea that matters, not whether the individual scientist came up with that idea via induction.
How do you assess the value of the idea? Bearing in mind that any extrapolation of the idea to cover unobserved instances of a phenomenon necessarily requires you to assume the constancy of said phenomenon. Which is itself an inductive conclusion.
Nwr writes:
Straggler writes:
It is an unavoidable consequence of everything you have said.
False.
Given that you have described any conclusion based on the inductively concluded consistency of natural phenomenon as opinions or guesses some elaboration might have helped here. Not your strong point I know..but.
Nwr writes:
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.
Once again you seem to be basing your argument on an all or nothing black and white idiocy of a conclusion being either wholly inductive or not inductive at all. Nobody here that I am aware of is saying that any highly accepted scientific conclusion was arrived at purely by means of induction. Induction is imperfect and the scientific method of testing conclusions etc. has been constructed at least partly to achieve reliability of conclusion despite that imperfection
Without the observations there would be no law of gravitation. This is surely indisputable? The fact that based on limited observations we have constructed a theory that applies to ALL instances universally would seem to be the very definition of induction. Even if additional steps were taken to ensure reliability.
If you are saying this is not so you need to detail how and why this is not the case with at least one example. Because at the moment all we really have is you asserting It’s not induction. It’s a standard.
Why would you expect future observations to conform to a standard unless you are inductively concluding that the phenomenon in question will operate as thus far observed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by nwr, posted 11-16-2010 12:04 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 352 by nwr, posted 11-16-2010 3:33 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 353 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-16-2010 3:41 PM Straggler has replied

  
Stephen Push
Member (Idle past 4860 days)
Posts: 140
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 348 of 744 (591864)
11-16-2010 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 339 by nwr
11-16-2010 12:04 PM


Re: Universal Principles
nwr writes:
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.
He probably woudn't get tenure if he waited for his ideas to come in a dream or in a package under the Christmas tree. But perhaps he could sit in an orchard and wait for an apple to fall on his head.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by nwr, posted 11-16-2010 12:04 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Stephen Push
Member (Idle past 4860 days)
Posts: 140
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 349 of 744 (591865)
11-16-2010 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 342 by nwr
11-16-2010 1:08 PM


Re: Induction And Science
nwr writes:
Whether scientists say that they use inductive reasoning, and whether they actually use inductive reasoning, are two different questions.
It's interesting that you chose to respond to that one sentence but have not responded to the point of my post, which asked you for some references to support your claim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by nwr, posted 11-16-2010 1:08 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 350 of 744 (591869)
11-16-2010 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 345 by Modulous
11-16-2010 1:29 PM


Modulous writes:
Would you like to deal with my argument? You know the part where science is never just operating at level 2.
What's to deal with? I never claimed that science is only operating at level 2.
Modulous writes:
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.
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?

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by Modulous, posted 11-16-2010 1:29 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 351 by Modulous, posted 11-16-2010 3:32 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 351 of 744 (591871)
11-16-2010 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 350 by nwr
11-16-2010 3:22 PM


What's to deal with? I never claimed that science is only operating at level 2.
You're still avoiding it, the gist of my post was about the importance of level 3 in science and yet you still focus on the bits about level 2. I am perfectly comfortable that you think science operates outside of level 2 - but when I try and discuss those parts of science, the parts where induction is used - you avoid it and focus on something about level 2 - like you just did.
So let's talk about how science uses levels 1 and 3, I've been doing it for some time now but you keep repeating over and over again that at level 2 there is no induction. This is true by definition, so let's move on from that, neh?
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?
Since when did I claim it was part of science? I was using it as an example of induction. I tried talking about pendulum interactions but you carefully avoided that line of thought. If you're ready to address any of the issues I have raised about a small set of observed pendulum interactions being used to generate a mathematical relationship (level 2) which is inductively reasoned (level 3) to apply universally to novel circumstances in the realm of objective reality (level 1), until proven otherwise - let me know. You gave up last time I tried.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by nwr, posted 11-16-2010 3:22 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 352 of 744 (591872)
11-16-2010 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 347 by Straggler
11-16-2010 2:15 PM


Re: Universal Principles
Straggler writes:
Your standard appears to only to apply as a method of organising existing observations into a logical and efficient manner.
I guess you don't understand the meaning of the word "standard".
Straggler writes:
It doesn’t appear to be able to say anything about why we should expect future observations to conform to that standard
Because that's what a standard is.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 347 by Straggler, posted 11-16-2010 2:15 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 358 by Straggler, posted 11-17-2010 6:34 AM nwr has replied
 Message 363 by Straggler, posted 11-17-2010 9:34 AM nwr has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 353 of 744 (591874)
11-16-2010 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 347 by Straggler
11-16-2010 2:15 PM


Re: Universal Principles
I think you're overlooking a piece of nwr's point...
Straggler writes:
Without induction how is it possible to have anything that could even be called a universal principle?
F = ma
Given a mass, m, with an acceleration, a, the force cannot be anything other than F because that is how F is defined.
This F force isn't some thing that was stumbled upon through induction, it was derived and defined as that.
In that other thread, Message 513, nwr wrote:
quote:
Another method is to define a standard, such that observations are to be made in accordance with that standard. Then all observations that are made by following that standard will have the appearance of being specific instances of the general statement which is the standard.
I say that Newton was setting standards. And we are still using some of Newton's standards even today. The Wikipedia definition of "dyne" is pretty much the restatement of one of Newton's laws in the form of a standard of measurement.
I'll write another reply that we can argue about, when I find some more time, but I just thought I'd chime in here and try to show you what I thought you were missing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 347 by Straggler, posted 11-16-2010 2:15 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 357 by Straggler, posted 11-17-2010 6:13 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 362 by Stephen Push, posted 11-17-2010 8:36 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 354 of 744 (591889)
11-16-2010 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 343 by Straggler
11-16-2010 1:12 PM


Re: Help! - I Am A Fire Breathing Jellyfish Who LIves Inside A Cactus
Your blindness to reality is mind-boggling, Straggler.
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?
Of course; I already indicated my thoughts regarding this matter when I put forth the axiom that has caused so much disagreement.
Have you ever woken up to observe anything else?
No... But that isn't related to what you asked above. You asked above what I thought would happen, then asked me about things I've observed. Two very different notions.
Do you think you ever will?
Now we are back to thoughts again?
If ones axioms are bullshit does it not follow that ones deductions are also bullshit?
Sure, so?
But if you are happy to describe your own conclusions as bullshit I am not going to argue with you.
I didn't describe my conclusions as bullshit; I described yours as bullshit, which they are.
Could you then explain how you determine which of the two (if either) mutually exclusive conclusions is to be considered correct?
Easy. Thread topic: Logic & Science; all else is irrelevant. Once we figure out it is irrelevant, who cares whether it's correct or not?
Then your conclusion is ultimately derived from nothing and is thus bullshit. My conclusion however is derived inductively as explained below.
Jon writes:
Straggler writes:
Between periods of observation the world appears to have continued to operate as it did whilst being observed.
Or so you've observed.
Indeed. It has never done anything else in my experience. Inductively I conclude that it never will.
And this is just the type of silly invalid, unfounded, ridiculous reasoning against which nwr has been arguing since the first.
Jon writes:
Straggler writes:
Thus we inductively conclude that it did so and will continue to do so.
Nope.
Yep.
Jon writes:
It's pretty simple, really.
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?
Jon writes:
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.
That isn’t what I said now is it? See above.
Jon writes:
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.
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.
Jon writes:
thus your argument is just circular and pointless.
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.
Jon writes:
To falsify it, you need only provide one example of an argument that is inductive that cannot be made deductive by adding missing premises.
Jon writes:
Straggler writes:
What are the missing premises here?
There aren't any.
Then your little exercise in logic has been falsified by the terms of your own challenge.
Was any of this meant to actually address the topic?
Jon

Check out Apollo's Temple!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by Straggler, posted 11-16-2010 1:12 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 361 by Straggler, posted 11-17-2010 7:03 AM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 355 of 744 (591890)
11-16-2010 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 346 by Straggler
11-16-2010 1:32 PM


Re: "Knowing"
I don't claim to know things I've never experienced.
Jon

Check out Apollo's Temple!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by Straggler, posted 11-16-2010 1:32 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 359 by Straggler, posted 11-17-2010 6:36 AM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 356 of 744 (591900)
11-16-2010 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 344 by Straggler
11-16-2010 1:18 PM


Re: Induction And Science
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.
Why even bother asking such a ridiculous question?
'Deduction' and 'a limited set of observations' aren't mutually exclusive; only you appear to believe that they are.
Jon
Edited by Jon, : rewording...

Check out Apollo's Temple!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 344 by Straggler, posted 11-16-2010 1:18 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 360 by Straggler, posted 11-17-2010 6:42 AM Jon has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 357 of 744 (591918)
11-17-2010 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 353 by New Cat's Eye
11-16-2010 3:41 PM


Re: Universal Principles
But unless you inductively conclude that nature will continue to behave as observed thus far why would your standard apply to any new observations?
And if this "standard" cannot be said to apply to new and as yet unmade observations how can you call it a "universal principle".
CS writes:
Given a mass, m, with an acceleration, a, the force cannot be anything other than F because that is how F is defined.
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?
CS writes:
I'll write another reply that we can argue about, when I find some more time, but I just thought I'd chime in here and try to show you what I thought you were missing.
None of this answers the question of why we should expect future observations of nature to behave in accordance with the standard that has been constructed.
And if this "standard" cannot be said to apply to new and as yet unmade observations how can you call it a "universal principle".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-16-2010 3:41 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 358 of 744 (591919)
11-17-2010 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 352 by nwr
11-16-2010 3:33 PM


Re: Universal Principles
Straggler writes:
Why would you expect future observations to conform to a standard unless you are inductively concluding that the phenomenon in question will operate as thus far observed?
But in characteristic fashion Nwr evades this key question and simply provides the following vaguety:
Nwr writes:
Because that's what a 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?
Unless you are inductively concluding that nature will continue to behave as observed thus far why would your standard apply to any new observations?
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?
Nwr writes:
I guess you don't understand the meaning of the word "standard".
Then rather than evade why don't you answer the questions. Specifically explain how a "standard" can be expected to apply to future observations without first inductively concluding that nature will behave in a manner that is consistent with past observations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 352 by nwr, posted 11-16-2010 3:33 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 366 by nwr, posted 11-17-2010 7:53 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 359 of 744 (591920)
11-17-2010 6:36 AM
Reply to: Message 355 by Jon
11-16-2010 9:01 PM


Re: "Knowing"
Jon writes:
I don't claim to know things I've never experienced.
Do you claim to know things you have experienced?
Can you give an example of something that you do know?
Do you think we can all know that your parents had sex wth each other at least once? Although I am sure most of us, inclding you, were not there to experience that particular event.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 355 by Jon, posted 11-16-2010 9:01 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 388 by Jon, posted 11-17-2010 11:47 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 360 of 744 (591921)
11-17-2010 6:42 AM
Reply to: Message 356 by Jon
11-16-2010 10:49 PM


Re: Induction And Science
Straggler writes:
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?
Jon writes:
Deductively.
Straggler writes:
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.
Jon writes:
Why even bother asking such a ridiculous question?
In order to see if you can backup your assertion. It seems that you cannot.
Jon writes:
'Deduction' and 'a limited set of observations' aren't mutually exclusive; only you appear to believe that they are.
How do you deductively conclude from a limited set of observations that a conclusion based on those limited set of obsevations applies universally?
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?
Can you backup your assertion or not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by Jon, posted 11-16-2010 10:49 PM Jon has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024