|
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 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen Push Member (Idle past 4889 days) Posts: 140 From: Virginia, USA Joined: |
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? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
nwr writes:
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? 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. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
CS writes:
Doesn't it? The point is that F=ma is different from a theory like 'All swans are white' because it doesn't use the same inductive process. I don't think so.
Do you think that the scientific conclusion is that F=ma only applies to those occurrances we have actually observed rather than ALL events where forces apply? No. F, what that capital letter is representing, equals mass time acceleration. It is defined as that and cannot be anything else.
CS writes: But the F can't be anything other than the m times the a because that's what it is defined as being. Can't be? Correct. Anything else would not be F.
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?
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.
CS 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? Really!? Of course not. Gawd!
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? This is a totally different subject. As the point is, this isn't an inductive issue.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Right:
A law describes. A theory explains Laws don't grow up to be theories; theories explain laws. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
nwr writes:
I have a copy. 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.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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
nwr writes:
Still too vague. There should be a section where it defines physical properties such as force. Is there really nowhere on the web that gives a defintion of 'standard' as you are using it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
Catholic Scientist writes:
Since F=ma is causing such confusion, how about Newton's 3rd Law of Motion.
No. F, what that capital letter is representing, equals mass time acceleration. It is defined as that and cannot be anything else. quote: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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
nwr writes:
So to translate your previous messages:
If you prefer the word "definition" instead of "standard", that's a different way of saying the same thing. Definitions are standards.quote: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: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024