|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Induction and Science | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Even if F=ma was not derived inductively (and I would argue that it was at least in part) it is indisputably applied inductively. What does it even mean to be 'applied inductively'? Jon Check out Apollo's Temple!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Jon writes:
No. Only because it angers you so...It is because you have no actual arguements to make. Equivocation is your best attempt at debate. I pity you.You are obsessed with posting on a discussion forum when you have nothing to say.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Panda writes:
You are probably correct, but it isn't actually relevant.
Newton did not base his observations on his definitions. Panda writes:
His laws are not descriptions of a falling apple.
He observered the apple falling before describing the apple falling. Panda writes:
No, I don't think that, and I haven't suggested that.
Again, you seem to think that scientists make definitions prior to making observations. Panda writes:
The swan example is made up, so it is artificial. However, I'll use that to try to explain more clearly. But since it is an artificial example, I will be artificial in how I use it.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. What first would have happened, is that people observed a bunch of white birds. They didn't observe any swans, because at first "swan" was not a word used for those birds. Perhaps, after seeing those white birds, they decided to name them "swans". And maybe they gave a precise definition of swan, something like: A swan is a bird which
Suppose, instead, that they did not include the third requirement in that definition. If they then concluded that "all swans are white", it would be reasonable to say that it was an inductive concusion. And they could even go back to the observations made before "swan" was thus defined, and count them as evidence for the induction (provided that the observations were of birds that meet the new definition of "swan"). The problem for inductionists, however, is that scientists do not seem to have any inclination to make such inductions. As best I can tell, there is not a single conclusive example of an actual induction that has been presented in this discussion. Science mainly works by making precise definitions, by using those definitions as standards for observations, and by using those definitions as premises in deductive reasoning. And, yes, they make observations before they come up with those precise definitions, with those preliminary observation being used to guide them in how they formulate the definitions. We can look at a non-artificial example. I'll suggest Boyle's law. It could be said that it resulted from an induction, though I personally suspect that it came from a theoretical analysis with a few observations used to back up the analysis. The thing about Boyle's law, is that as applied to ordinary gases it is false and well known to be false. It is important because, although false, it is actually a pretty good approximation. It is one of the "ideal gas laws", meaning that it mainly treated a true statement about imaginary ideal gases. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Stephen Push writes:
If we measure using standard time, then the length of a local solar day is not 24 hours. It changes throughout the year, by around 1%. So if we were to local solar time to measure the rotation speed of the earth, then that speed would vary throughout the year by around 1%.What exactly are you measuring? The point to notice here, is that you cannot have laws such as Newton's without basing them on precisely defined standards. And in this case, the natural standard for time (i.e. local solar time) is not compatible with Newton's laws.
Stephen Push writes:
It isn't changing by anything close to 1%, and earthquakes can actually cause it to speed up.Actually, Earth's rotation is slowing down. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
And yet you are still confused. Amazing.
Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
You are obsessed with posting on a discussion forum when you have nothing to say. Ahh... but don't we all . Anyway, back to the topic. I've already explained how a 'law' about everything can arise from a few observations, a couple of assumptions, and some intro-level deduction:
quote: You're welcomed to address this. Jon Check out Apollo's Temple!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Straggler writes:
When Marie Curie discovered radioactivity, that seemed to be energy from nowhere. Instead of being taken to refute conservation of energy, it was decided to say that there was nuclear energy.Any universal principle of science (e.g. Newton’s universal law of gravitation, conservation of energy, the second law of thermodynamics etc. etc. etc.) is considered to apply to ALL relevant events. Whether past present or future, observed or unobserved. I put it to you that the principles are not about the world, but are about us and how we should interpret things in the world. See also the Duhem - Quine thesis.
nwr writes: The standards have nothing to say about how nature behaves. Straggler writes:
Apparently, I was not clear enough. I'll say it again. Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves.Yet scientific theories do. Suggested reading: Nancy Cartwright, "How the laws of physics lie". She makes the case that the laws of physics are not descriptions of reality, but are idealizations. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
You are conflating derivation with application. No, I am simply not talking about application. I'm just talking about the derivation. Back in the Peanut Gallery thread, you replied to this from nwr:
quote: by asking what he was doing. Now, in this thread I see this from you in Message 347:
Without induction how is it possible to have anything that could even be called a universal principle? It stems back to Message 327:
Without induction how is it possible to have anything that could even be called a universal principle? By it’s very definition a universal principle is a conclusion that has been extrapolated to apply beyond those instances actually observed. Universal principles such as Newton’s third law or Newton’s law of gravitation are considered to apply in ALL relevant cases. Regardless of where or when and whether or not anyone was actually observing.
How can a universal scientific principle exist without inductive reasoning? I brought in F=ma to show that you can have something like a universal principle without having to use inductive logic to get it. I thought you were simply overlooking something and did not intend to argue much about it.
Even if F=ma was not derived inductively (and I would argue that it was at least in part) it is indisputably applied inductively. That's beside the point I wanted to raise here. But now, with your other post on what you're talknig about as universal principles, I'n not so sure that F=ma is really a relevant example of that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
nwr writes:
The swan example is real. The swan example is made up, so it is artificial. However, I'll use that to try to explain more clearly. But since it is an artificial example, I will be artificial in how I use it.It is used as an example because it is real. People used to think that all swans were white and the term 'Black Swan' was even used to describe things that didn't exist. nwr writes:
This seems like a reasonable definition of swans. A swan is a bird which
I agree that all swans have a beak of a certain (specific) shape. I agree that all swans have feet of a certain (specific) shape. I agree that all swans are white. nwr writes:
But you are not deducing that all swans are white, you are just repeating the definition. Now with that definition, we see that "all swans are white" can be deduced from the definition.Premise: "A swan is (by definition) white." Conclusion: "All swans are white" You present only one premise and then repeat that premise as your conclusion - that is not deductive reasoning. Saying "A swan is white" is exactly the same as saying "All swans are white".There is no deductive reasoning required, all you have to do is rephrase the statement. nwr writes:
The initial definition that "A swan is a white bird" is achieved through inductive reasoning. So no induction at all is being used to conclude that "all swans are white".The statement that "All swans are white" is simply a repeat of the initial definition. nwr writes:
When defining what a swan is - you inductively apply your observations to all swans. The observations that were made prior to defining "swan" were part of what motivated the definition, but they were not part of an induction, and at the time the observations were made they were not even observations of swans, since "swan" was undefined at that time.When you say "All swans are white" then that is inductive - as you have not looked at every swan. (The fact that you have not looked at every swan becomes apparent when you meet your first black swan.) By definition: you cannot make general/universal rules/laws using deductive reasoning.Deductive reasoning cannot get from a limited set of facts to a general statement. That is part of the definition of deductive reasoning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
By definition: you cannot make general/universal rules/laws using deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning cannot get from a limited set of facts to a general statement. That is part of the definition of deductive reasoning. But certainly all inductive reasonings are simply deductive reasonings with missing premises. And, I am not even sure nwr is arguing for deduction; I think that's my take your addressing here. Jon Check out Apollo's Temple! Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Panda writes:
That's made up to. I keep wondering why people believe these obviously made up stories.
The swan example is real. It is used as an example because it is real. People used to think that all swans were white and the term 'Black Swan' was even used to describe things that didn't exist. Panda writes:
Of course it is deductive reasoning. It is rather trivial deductive reasoning, but it is still valid logic.
But you are not deducing that all swans are white, you are just repeating the definition. Premise: "A swan is (by definition) white." Conclusion: "All swans are white" You present only one premise and then repeat that premise as your conclusion - that is not deductive reasoning. Panda writes:
No, it is achieved through the adoption of a naming convention. There is nothing inductive about it.
The initial definition that "A swan is a white bird" is achieved through inductive reasoning. Panda writes:
Until you have defined "swan", there are no such things as swans and observations of white birds are not observations of swans.
When defining what a swan is - you inductively apply your observations to all swans. Panda writes:
A definition is a general statement. It depends on zero facts and does not require deduction. It becomes, in effect, an axiom that can be used in future deductions.By definition: you cannot make general/universal rules/laws using deductive reasoning. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
nwr writes:
Yes, it is weird that people believe stories that are self evidently true.
That's made up to. I keep wondering why people believe these obviously made up stories. nwr writes:
Please show the deductive reasoning. Of course it is deductive reasoning. It is rather trivial deductive reasoning, but it is still valid logic.What new information is deduced? nwr writes:
Your definition said: "A swan is..." - so the name is established. No, it is achieved through the adoption of a naming convention. There is nothing inductive about it.Then it said "...white". This means that you have said that all swans are white. Have you inspected all swans? No. Therefore it is inductive. nwr writes:
So, why did you define all swans as being white, if "observations of white birds are not observations of swans"? Panda writes:
Until you have defined "swan", there are no such things as swans and observations of white birds are not observations of swans. When defining what a swan is - you inductively apply your observations to all swans.Why not say all swans are green? nwr writes:
What the hell are you replying to?
Panda writes:
A definition is a general statement. It depends on zero facts and does not require deduction. It becomes, in effect, an axiom that can be used in future deductions. By definition: you cannot make general/universal rules/laws using deductive reasoning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen Push Member (Idle past 4889 days) Posts: 140 From: Virginia, USA Joined: |
nwr writes: The point to notice here, is that you cannot have laws such as Newton's without basing them on precisely defined standards. And in this case, the natural standard for time (i.e. local solar time) is not compatible with Newton's laws. You are confusing convenience with compatibility. Mean solar time is convenient because it is more constant. But true solar time is compatible with Newton's laws if you account for the elliptical orbit of Earth, the tilt of its axis, and other causes of fluctuations in the length of the day.
. . . and earthquakes can actually cause it to speed up. What point are you trying to make here concerning inductive reasoning and Newton's laws? In fact, both the deceleration of Earth's rotation caused by the Moon and the acceleration caused by earthquakes can be explained with Newton's laws. Edited by Stephen Push, : No reason given. Edited by Stephen Push, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen Push Member (Idle past 4889 days) Posts: 140 From: Virginia, USA Joined: |
nwr writes: Now with that definition, we see that "all swans are white" can be deduced from the definition. "Swan" in not an abstract entity that you can define any way you like. The term refers to a group of species of birds. You could not have seen all individuals of these species, so any statement that "all swans are white" is necessarily based on induction.
nwr writes: As best I can tell, there is not a single conclusive example of an actual induction that has been presented in this discussion. A 1997 study that involved 231 paired observations of crows in Davis, California, was titled, "Crows Do Not Use Automobiles as Nutcrackers." Please note the study was not titled, "231 Crows in Davis, California, in 1997 Did Not Use Automobiles as Nutcrackers." The authors used inductive reasoning to make the claim that their conclusion applies to all crows, everywhere, all of the time. This type of inductive reasoning is typical of scientific studies. I could cite hundreds of examples if I thought you would take them seriously.
It is one of the "ideal gas laws", meaning that it mainly treated a true statement about imaginary ideal gases. The ideal gas law is used every day by scuba divers around the world to avoid a potentailly fatal buildup of real nitrogen in their blood. They trust their lives to inductive reasoning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Panda writes:
That's made up to. I keep wondering why people believe these obviously made up stories. Panda writes:
Sure, it's self-evidently true. Never mind the evidence. Don't worry about facts. It fits your creationist way of thinking about the world so it is self-evidently true.Yes, it is weird that people believe stories that are self evidently true. When explorers reached Australia, they did not discover any black swans. What they discovered were some black water fowl that had a somewhat similar appearance to swans. They were not of the same species as swans. They were not even of the same genus as swans. They were just distant relatives of swans. I spent the first 23 years of my life in Australia. We never called them "swans." We called them "black swans." That is, we used a two word composite name. So it is self-evidently true that the "black swan" refutation of an alleged induction is a made up story.
Deduction does not produce new information. At most, it helps to reveal information already in the premises that had not been previously noticed.
Panda writes:
The definition says that if it isn't white, it isn't a swan. No induction is needed.Your definition said: "A swan is..." - so the name is established. Then it said "...white". This means that you have said that all swans are white. Have you inspected all swans? No. Therefore it is inductive. Your problem with this is that you are thinking like a creationist. In the beginning God created the world. And he created the swan kind, and the swallow kind. So the swan kind exists on account of the creator, and at best we have to try to work out what that means. Forget the creationist thinking, and what you get is: The world is a mess. There's all kinds of stuff there. So lets try to organize that stuff. We will try to find ways of seeing differences in the stuff that is there, and then use those difference to name various types of stuff. So we name one type of stuff "swan". And what makes it a swan isn't that it is part of any natural kind, isn't that it has some mystical swan essence. No, what makes it "swan" is that it fits the characterization that we have used to classify it as "swan". So if part of that characterization is whiteness, then it is a necessary truth that swans are white, made necessary by the way that we have organized the world into different types of stuff. There's no induction about it. You are seeing induction involved because you are not accepting the definition as a definition. You are insisting that "swan" is actually defined by the creator in the creation of those "natural kinds", and you are insisting that what I called a definition is merely a description of what was defined by the creator. Science doesn't work with that type of creationist thinking. If you want science to work that way, then you will need to abandon much of our scientific knowledge. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024