Induction and Science

Are you always this absurd?I'll restate my previous answer as "Nature isn't being expected to comply with anything." I answered the question. You are apparently too ignorant to be able to see that.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

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.

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?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

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.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

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.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

I don't think so. No. F, what that capital letter is representing, equals mass time acceleration. It is defined as that and cannot be anything else. Correct. Anything else would not be F. No. If you had a force that was not equal to mass times acceleration, then you would not have the F.The alien culture could have their own F₂ that was proportional to m², like I explained in the message you replied to. Really!? Of course not. Gawd! This is a totally different subject. As the point is, this isn't an inductive issue.

Right:A law describes.A theory explainsLaws don't grow up to be theories; theories explain laws.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I have a copy.
It is almost 3000 pages long.I can find no reference to the 'standard' you appear to be refering to.Can you either be more specific about a location in that book or suggest some web-sites.I would have expected such a widespread term to be mentioned in many places...

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

Still too vague.Is there really nowhere on the web that gives a defintion of 'standard' as you are using it?

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

Since F=ma is causing such confusion, how about Newton's 3rd Law of Motion.

quote:

---

To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction: or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts.

---

I am sure you wouldn't say that Newton had tested every action.
And surely you wouldn't say that Newton's laws don't apply to future actions.So, could you please explain how the words 'every' and 'always' can be used without inductive reasoning?

Combining replies to Message 359, Message 360, and Message 361: The Sun rose this morning. Not all, no. 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? I have made no assertions regarding Newton's Laws, so I am not sure what I would be backing up relative to those laws. 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. Huh? I don't recall saying such a thing; you will have to point out where I did say such a thing. 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. No; I have not. I've made no statements regarding the derivation of my axioms. 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. Again, more irrelevant stupidity. Why keep asking? 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!

So to translate your previous messages:

quote:

---

Newton's laws are a definition upon which observation is based. As far as I know, he proposed those definitions on theoretical grounds, and then his "limited set of observations" were used to demonstrate the efficacy of his definitions.

---

Here it becomes clear that you have things back to front.
Newton did not base his observations on his definitions.
He observered the apple falling before describing the apple falling.

quote:

---

Another method is to define a definition, such that observations are to be made in accordance with that definiton. Then all observations that are made by following that definition will have the appearance of being specific instances of the general statement which is the definition.

​

I say that Newton was setting definitions. And we are still using some of Newton's definitions even today. The Wikipedia definition of "dyne" is pretty much the restatement of one of Newton's laws in the form of a definition of measurement.

---

Again, you seem to think that scientists make definitions prior to making observations.
This is not true.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.

I hate to say it, but... deductively.Jon(okay; I like saying it)

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!