|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
|
| |
| ChatGPT | |
| Total: 916,918 Year: 4,175/9,624 Month: 1,046/974 Week: 5/368 Day: 5/11 Hour: 0/2 |
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| 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 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jon Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jon Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jon Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jon Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jon Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jon Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jon Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jon Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
