|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Induction and Science | |||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Stephen Push writes:
Once you account for those things, you no longer have true solar time. Instead, you have mean solar time.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. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Stephen Push writes:
Do pay attention."Swan" in not an abstract entity that you can define any way you like. The term refers to a group of species of birds. As I said, the swan example is artificial, so I will feel free to use it artificially to illustrate the point. If you don't want to use it artificially, then you are stuck with the fact that there has been no evidence given that scientists are inclined to make any such induction as "all swans are white."
Stephen Push writes:
I'm calling "bullshit" on that.
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. quote:There's no assertion there about "all crows". There's no induction. The only conclusion made is that the original research was of poor quality and should not be cited. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen Push Member (Idle past 4889 days) Posts: 140 From: Virginia, USA Joined: |
nwr writes: Once you account for those things, you no longer have true solar time. Instead, you have mean solar time. No. Mean solar time averages out cyclical fluctuations to provide a more constant standard. Using true solar time and accounting for the elliptical orbit of Earth, etc., does not ignore the fluctuations, it explains them. But I think your statement above reveals a lot about your view of science. You think it's all about definitions, standards, deduction, appearances, opinions, and guesses. You apparently don't appreciate how science can explain and predict. Edited by Stephen Push, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen Push Member (Idle past 4889 days) Posts: 140 From: Virginia, USA Joined: |
nwr writes: As I said, the swan example is artificial, so I will feel free to use it artificially to illustrate the point. If you don't want to use it artificially, then you are stuck with the fact that there has been no evidence given that scientists are inclined to make any such induction as "all swans are white." You can call the swan exmaple artifical all you want, that doesn't make it so. You might want to read about the Black Swan Theory. As a matter of fact, Europeans did use inductive reasoning to conclude that all swans are white, until Dutch explorers discovered black swans in Australia in 1697.
There's no assertion there about "all crows". There's no induction. The only conclusion made is that the original research was of poor quality and should not be cited. The original reports were published in the 1970's. The study that refuted those reports was conducted in the 1990's. Crows have an average life span in the wild of 7-8 years. Thus it is highly unlikely that the crows observed in the 1997 study were the same individuals observed in the original reports. Without inductive reasoning, the authors of the 1997 study could not have made a valid claim of having refuted the studies conducted two decades earlier on different crows. More generally, almost all biological studies use inductive reasoning. When researchers study the genetics of fruit flies, for example, they are not interested only in the individual fruit flies in their lab. In fact, they are not interested only in fruit flies generally. They are trying to understand genetic principles that can be applied to other sexually reproducing species, including humans. Edited by Stephen Push, : No reason given. Edited by Stephen Push, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
If we wanted to send a rocket to Mars (or wherever else) we could make the necessary calculations on Earth today.
The idea that we need to wait and see if nature will still be behaving in accordance with Newton's laws on the day of the launch isn't even an issue. The idea that we need to factor in the possibility that Newton's laws won't apply on Mars in the same way that they do on Earth won't even be an issue. Why? Because inductively we (albeit tentatively) know that Newton's laws will apply equally whenever it is that we launch our rocket and wherever it is that our rocket lands.
CS writes: 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. It cannot be considered universal unless you inductively conclude that it applies in all cases. So, practically by definition, it's status as a universal principle has been arrived at inductively.
CS writes: Straggler writes: 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. If you are saying that F=ma by definition regardless of what we observe in nature then by the terms of your argument Newton's laws are unfalsifiable. That just isn't how science works CS.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Jon writes: Straggler writes: 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'? Is there no end to your bewilderment? If we wanted to send a rocket to Mars (or wherever else) we could make the necessary calculations on Earth today.The idea that we need to wait and see if nature will still be behaving in accordance with Newton's laws on the day of the launch isn't even an issue. The idea that we need to factor in the possibility that Newton's laws won't apply on Mars in the same way that they do on Earth won't even be an issue. Why? Because inductively we (albeit tentatively) know that Newton's laws will apply equally whenever it is that we launch our rocket and wherever it is that our rocket lands. Of course by the terms of your "axioms dervied from nothing" argument any successful rocket launch or landing is just the result of deductions made from spectacularly fortuitous baseless guesses.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Nwr writes: And yet you are still confused. No. I understand your arguments perfectly. You are just wrong.
Nwr writes: Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves. If that is youir view then it is no wonder that your description of non-inductive science is so at odds with the way science actually does operate.
Nwr writes: Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves. Then I guess we can just change our "standards" build a series of perpetual motion machines and solve the world's energy crisis before breakfast. I mean that pesky second law of thermodynamics doesn't actually tell us anything fundamental about the world does it?
Nwr writes: Amazing. It would be. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Jon writes: ...assumed everything worked like the things he saw.. Inductive reasoning? Or was this assumption yet another of your "derived from nothing" spectacularly fortuitous guesses?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Question: Is it the conclusion of science that the second law of thermodynamics applies only to those instances so far observed? Or is the second law of thermodynamics a statement of something far more wide ranging and fundamental about the way nature has been scientifically concluded to universally behave?
This is not a rhetorical question.
CS on universal principles writes: Can you give me some examples of them? Newton’s universal law of gravitation has already been discussed (the name is the clue here). Conservation of energy. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. The second law of thermodynamics. All are examples of scientific principles which are considered by science to accurately describe the behaviour of nature universally. Not just here and now. Not just that which has been observed. But (tentatively) that which will be observed and even those things unobserved.
CS writes: I think we stating a definition and then not specifically addressing what is going to happen in the future. So, like NWr, you think we are guessing or expressing opinions when we predict things like eclipses?
CS writes: I think you're mistaken about how science actually works. The non-inductive view of science you and Nwr are advocating makes it impossible for science to conclude anything about the future behaviour of nature. All you can do is cite a standard and then see whether or not nature will or will not continue to operate in accordance with this standard. Without induction there is absolutely no reason at all to expect that it will.
Nwr writes: Nature isn't being expected to comply with anything. Yet science has concluded that we can expect (albeit tentatively) nature to continue to operate in accordance with our universal principles. Science keeps making very practical and very accurate conclusions about the behaviour of the real world on the basis of these inductively derived universal principles. Why would we expect our GPS system to work in an hours time unless the principles of relativity can be considered to apply then? The particle accelerator at CERN was designed ages ago so why would we possibly expect the principles applied to that design to facilitate any experiments we attempt today or tomorrow? No luminiferous aether was found in Einstein’s day but maybe we need to retest for it’s existence at least once a month just in case it makes an appearance? Has anybody checked whether or not nature is still operating in accordance with Boyle’s law today? I mean who knows? Right? It is the very fact that the non-inductive science you and Nwr are advocating denies the ability of science to conclude that nature will (tentatively) behave in certain ways that makes this description of science so at odds with real world science.
CS writes: Have you ever been in a physics lab and done the experiments? Actually yes I have. See message 396. Although why you and Nwr are obsessing over this is a mystery.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Your non-inductive description of science spectacularly fails to deal with the indisputable fact that science as practised by real scientists makes inductive conclusions about the way nature will behave in as yet unobserved circumstances.
Until you can describe science in a way that does not necessitate such genuibely scientific conclusions as being "guesses" or "opinions" you remain entirely refuted on this very crucial point regarding the inductive nature of science. Case closed as far as your main argument is concerned. But I see you now want to change the subject.
Nwr writes: 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. I don't see how you can seperate the two in the way that you are suggesting. Our interpretations are worthless unless they say something about the actual world.
Nwr writes: She makes the case that the laws of physics are not descriptions of reality, but are idealizations. OK. But idealisations of what? If you are saying that scientific theories are imperfect models nobody here will disagree with you. But what are our scientific theories modelling? The difference between imperfect models and the assertion that "scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves" is enormous. We can all agree on the former. But no scientist and few philosophers of science would agree with your assertion that "scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves".
Nwr writes: Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves. Can you tell us what it is you think scientific theories are doing and why they allow us to manipulate and control aspects of nature so successfully then? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
I feel a "derived from nothing" axiom coming.
Urrrrgggghhhh. (**Clench and squeeze**) Axiom: Jon is an idiot. Look Jon!! By some bewilderingly improbable coincidence my "derived from nothing" axiom just so happens to coincide with all of my real world expereince. Just like yours do.
Jon writes: Go back and address all of my points. I see we have reached that inevitable stage where you have effectively lost the argument so rather than actually engage in any further discussion you simply start asserting that you have made lots and lots of unanswered points. Rather than go through the usual routine of me asking you what these points are and you repeatedly refusing to cite any of them whilst continuing to insist that there are lots and lots of them why don't we do something different this time? Why don't you pick out that one most pertinent and argument clinching point that you think remains unanswered and put it to me? In return perhaps you can answer this? Jon — How is an assumption derived from nothing different to a blind random guess?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
SP about Nwr writes: You think it's all about definitions, standards, deduction, appearances, opinions, and guesses. You apparently don't appreciate how science can explain and predict. Nwr's view of non-inductive science is completely unable to account for the fact that science is able to successfully make very specific (albeit tentative) conclusions about as yet unobserved events. His "non-inductive" science provides no reason to think that any scientific prediction will tell us anything more about how nature will or won't behave than a blind random guess.
Nwr writes:
Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
CS writes: And actually, that 3rd law doesn't apply to 'every' and 'always', its for specific situations. CS do you have any idea just how fundamentally wrong you are about this? Newtons third law tells us that a force is not merely something defined as being that which causes a change of velocity. It is a statement of the much more fundamental idea of force as an interaction between bodies. This underpins the logic of Newton's other two laws. Forces always arrive from interactions. That is what Newton's third law tells us. If we were to ever observe an isolated body undergoing an acceleration Newtons laws would have been violated in a fundamental way. They would have been falsified. Newton's third law also leads directly to the universal principle that is the conservation of momentum. If, as you are suggesting, Newton's third law only applied in some situations we would see the the principle of conservation of momentum being violated all over the place. Strangely we have never observed this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
nwr writes:
LOL?
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. nwr writes:
Your point is confused. 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.Did people correctly think that all swans were white (because there are no black swans)? Or did people incorrectly think that all swans were white (because there are black swans)? Either way, they used inductive reasoning to conclude that all swans were white. nwr writes:
Well, unless you are going to inductively conclude that all people call them 'black swans' (based on your limited set of 'we') I see no arguement to support your claim.
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. nwr writes:
Your conclusion is a re-statement of your premise. Deduction does not produce new information. At most, it helps to reveal information already in the premises that had not been previously noticed."A swan (by definition) is white" is identical to "All swans are white". What is the information "not previously noticed" - be specific. nwr writes:
To state that all non-white birds are not swans requires inductive reasoning. The definition says that if it isn't white, it isn't a swan. No induction is needed.(Or you need to examine all non-white birds and verify that they are not swans.) Why do you keep giving clear examples of inductive reasoning and then claiming that inductive reasoning is not required? It looks as strange as claiming: "There is no such thing as a noun". By definition: you cannot make general/universal rules/laws using deductive reasoning.To rephrase: The definition of what 'deductive reasoning' is prohibits using deductive reasoning to expand from a limited (smaller) set of information to a universal (larger) set of information. You will have to completely redefine what deductive reasoning is if you wish to argue from the specific to the general.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen Push Member (Idle past 4889 days) Posts: 140 From: Virginia, USA Joined: |
Straggler writes: All you can do is cite a standard and then see whether or not nature will or will not continue to operate in accordance with this standard. I think you are wrong about nwr's position. If you craft the standard properly, the results of your observations and experiments will, by definition, always appear to be in accordance with the standard. But I'm not sure what, if any, role nature has in the process. Didn't they teach you anything at Imperial College?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024