|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
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? Huh? When did I mention my conclusion as superior? Did you only wish I had?
By the terms of your own insane arguments both our mutually exclusive conclusions are equally correct. Go figure. Never made that argument. Perhaps you only wish I had.
Your question amounts to - Do I agree that the observance or non-observance of something may or may not impact it's behaviour? Not really. You clearly wish it did, though.
How do you know when something will be an exception to this? Not sure; but I like leaving open possibilities.
The conclusion that unobserved phenomenon will behave in the same way as observed phenomenon is itself inductively derived from experience. No, Straggler. Once again, it is an axiom; it is derived from nothing. Why is this so hard to understand?
Between periods of observation the world appears to have continued to operate as it did whilst being observed. Or so you've observed.
Thus we inductively conclude that it did so and will continue to do so. Nope.
What are the missing premises here? 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.
Or have I falsified your little logic exercise? You wish! Jon Check out Apollo's Temple!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
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:
There aren't any. What are the missing premises here? 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Combining replies to Message 359, Message 360, and Message 361:
Can you give an example of something that you do know? The Sun rose this morning.
Do you claim to know things you have experienced? Not all, no.
How do you deductively conclude from a limited set of observations that a conclusion based on those limited set of obsevations applies universally? You simply make an assumption to close the gap; really, Straggler, the turning of an inductive argument into a deductive one is elementary. Why the difficulty?
In order to see if you can backup your assertion. It seems that you cannot. I have made no assertions regarding Newton's Laws, so I am not sure what I would be backing up relative to those laws.
Perhaps you can explain specifically how Newton's third law which tells us that ALL forces are the result of interactions was arrived at wholly deductively? You just make an assumption to close the gap. Newton observed some shit happening; saw it all happened in a certain way; assumed everything worked like the things he saw; concluded everything happened in that same certain way. Elementary, really.
So this axiom of yours which you have repeatedly asserted is "derived from nothing" is actually derived from experience. Huh? I don't recall saying such a thing; you will have to point out where I did say such a thing.
That it will always apply, as per your "axiom", is thus an inductive conclusion. Again; how do you figure this from anything I've said? You asked: "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?" I replied: "Of course..." You concluded: "So this axiom of yours ... is actually derived from experience." Somewhere there is a link missing, for you asked me regarding what I thought, and concluded regarding what I experienced. Two entirely different things; you will have to demonstrate your leap from point A to Q. But even if you do that, you'll still have to show me why 'experience' is in no way tied to 'observation', because it still seems to me like you are trying to derive non-observed information from the world by making observations.
You have conceded that your "derived from nothing" axiomatic starting point of your little deductive exercise is in fact derived from experience. No; I have not. I've made no statements regarding the derivation of my axioms.
Have you ever woken up to observe the world in a state that is inconsistent with it functioning as observed while you were not observing it? I'm sorry, but that is just stupid. I cannot observe the world and then pretend like my observations are actually not observations and so then conclude that I made an observation about the unobserved world. What folly.
Have you (for example) ever awoken to find that the world appeared to have been on pause during your period of non-observance? Again, more irrelevant stupidity.
Do you think you ever will? Why keep asking?
Jon writes: Straggler writes: What are the missing premises here? There aren't any. Then you remain refuted. Learn to read Straggler. The reason there are no missing premises is because your argument is stupid, circular, contradictory, and pointless: All unobserved things I observe operate identically to all observed things I observe; All (p) that are (~p) are identical to all (p) that are (p). Only you fail to see the absurdity. Jon Check out Apollo's Temple!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
So, could you please explain how the words 'every' and 'always' can be used without inductive reasoning? I hate to say it, but... deductively. Jon (okay; I like saying it) Check out Apollo's Temple!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Go back and address all of my points. I didn't post them for my own sake.
Jon Check out Apollo's Temple!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
It is a shame that your 'good advice' seems not to be applicable to yourself. Only because it angers you so... Jon 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