|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Induction and Science | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
SP writes: 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. You might be right. In which case Nwr has invented a form of science where theories are unfalsifiable because they are independent of nature. Radical.
Nwr writes: Didn't they teach you anything at Imperial College? Nothing that prepared me for this non-inductive reality-independent form of "science".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I still don't know what it means to be 'applied inductively'. Induction is a strategy for drawing conclusions from premises; I cannot figure out how in the hell we can use the term 'induction' to describe the application of scientific formulae to aspects of reality.
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. Whew, I guess it's a good thing no one's been arguing for that!
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. Good thing no one's argued for that, either. Jon Edited by Jon, : fed up quote Check out Apollo's Temple! Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Jon writes: Induction is a strategy for drawing conclusions from premises. Premises derived from what Jon?
Jon writes: Whew, I guess it's a good thing no one's been arguing for that! How is an assumption "derived from nothing" different to an entirely random guess?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Please do try to stay on topic, Straggler.
Premises derived from what Jon? Who cares? That doesn't help me understand what 'applied inductively' means.
How is an assumption "derived from nothing" different to an entirely random guess? Who cares? That doesn't help me understand what 'applied inductively' means. Please, Straggler, the topic. Jon Check out Apollo's Temple! Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Your entire position in this thread has been based on "derived from nothing" premises and now suddenly they are "off-topic" because you are unable to answer a question without your idiocy being so apparent that even you might have to recognise it?
Incredible.
Jon writes: That doesn't help me understand what 'applied inductively' means. As per the Mars example. We are applying Newtons laws to a new situation based on the inductive conclusion that if they can be successfully applied now on Earth they can also be successfully applied whenever on Mars too. We are doing this: Inductive Reasoning Wiki writes:
Inductive reasoning, also known as induction or inductive logic, or educated guess in colloquial English, is a kind of reasoning that draws generalized conclusions from a finite collection of specific observations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Your entire position in this thread has been based on "derived from nothing" premises and now suddenly they are "off-topic" because you are unable to answer a question without your idiocy being so apparent that even you might have to recognise it? Incredible. Good thing I never said they were off-topic.
As per the Mars example. We are applying Newtons laws to a new situation based on the inductive conclusion that if they can be successfully applied now on Earth they can also be successfully applied whenever on Mars too. So, 'applied inductively' means applying to specific instances the conclusions that you believe to be derived from inductive reasoning? Jon Check out Apollo's Temple! Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Jon — How is an assumption derived from nothing different to a blind random guess?
Jon writes: So, 'applied inductively' means applying to specific instances the conclusions that you believe to be derived from inductive reasoning? It means to apply to a specific new instance on the basis of inductively concluding that it applies to all instances.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
It means to apply to a specific new instance on the basis of inductively concluding that it applies to all instances. Excellent! Thank you for clearing this up. Jon Check out Apollo's Temple! Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Jon — How is an assumption derived from nothing different to a blind random guess?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Sorry, Straggler, but if you have no intent on addressing the points brought against your position, I've no reason to continue bringing points against your position for you to simply ignore in your quest to ask as many irrelevant questions as possible.
As I've said to you many other times; when you're ready to address the points against your position, feel free to do so and we can continue from there. But, until then... Jon Check out Apollo's Temple! Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Straggler writes:
This is a good question. Jon — How is an assumption derived from nothing different to a blind random guess? It is so good that Jon will refuse to answer it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Jon — How is an assumption derived from nothing different to a blind random guess? Been answered already: Who cares? Jon Check out Apollo's Temple! Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Jon — How is an assumption derived from nothing different to a blind random guess?
Straggler writes: 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? Jon writes: Sorry, Straggler, but if you have no intent on addressing the points brought against your position, I've no reason to continue bringing points against your position for you to simply ignore in your quest to ask as many irrelevant questions as possible. As I've said to you many other times; when you're ready to address the points against your position, feel free to do so and we can continue from there. But, until then... Can you read? I wrote "Why don't you pick out that one most pertinent and argument clinching point that you think remains unanswered and put it to me?" If you take me up on this offer we will deal with this multitude of apparently unaddressed points that you have made one by one. But I am not going to let you get away with your "I have made lots of points" bollocks this time. Cite one or shut the fuck up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
This is a good question. It's really not. It's just more Straggler-ese bullshit that has nothing to do with the topic. Jon Check out Apollo's Temple! Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
If you take me up on this offer we will deal with this multitude of apparently unaddressed points that you have made one by one. But I am not going to let you get away with your "I have made lots of points" bollocks this time. Yes, Straggler, I am aware of how you work. This is pretty much your MO. All the other threads in which you've participate tell me that you will not, in fact, address the points against your argument, no matter how much your opponents kowtow to your little games. So why should bother? You know my argument. You can choose to address it or not. Jon Check out Apollo's Temple! Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024