|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Induction and Science | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Jon writes: Straggler writes: Jon — How is an assumption derived from nothing different to a blind random guess? Been answered already: Who cares? Those relying on the conclusions derived from blind random guesses might well care. I am about to have another of those "derived from nothing" axiom moments. Urrrrggghhh!! (**Clench and squeeze**) Axiom: Jon can fly. From this I deduce that if you climb to the top of the nearest tower block, jump off and head East you will be here in London in no time. I'll buy you a beer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
So you cannot name a single as yet unaddressed point then? Despite there being lots of them?
Oh dear.
Jon writes: You know my argument. Indeed. "Derived from nothing".
Jon writes: You can choose to address it or not. I have. Your "method" is what is more commonly known as "guessing" and then coming to the exact same conclusions as the rest of us do inductively. It is a miracle of sheer coincidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Whatever, Straggler. Just don't squeeze so hard that you hurt yourself.
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:
|
Jon writes:
It is so nice to see you using inductive reasoning.
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Please jump off the nearest skyscraper Jon. Please.
For me?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Panda to Jon writes: It is so nice to see you using inductive reasoning. Classic. How did I miss that........
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Jon writes: You know my argument. Indeed. "Derived from nothing". I guess I was wrong. You have no idea what my argument is. Axioms are derived from nothing; this is not my argument; it is the definition of an axiom. My argument is still that inductive arguments are deductive arguments with missing premises.
I have. Your "method" is what is more commonly known as "guessing" and then coming to the exact same conclusions as the rest of us do inductively. Nevertheless, you've yet to lay out a single 'inductive' argument that I could not make deductive. I laid out my argument very neatly; stated premises, axioms, and conclusions. All that is asked is that you also lay out your example arguments in this fashion so they can be easily understood and addressed. For example: Axiom1: What I see is Real.Premise1: I see the Sun. Conclusion1: The Sun is Real. When you have one like this, post it and we can address it. 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 writes: My argument is still that inductive arguments are deductive arguments with missing premises. From where are these premises derived?
Jon writes: When you have one like this, post it and we can address it. You want me to layout a deductive argument to show you why your arguments are ultimately inductive?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
You want me to layout a deductive argument to show you why your arguments are ultimately inductive? No; that was an example of how to state your argument clearly-enough to be easily understood and addressed. Separate out each of the premises, the axioms, and the conclusions: A1:A2: P1: P2: C1: etc. This makes it easy to follow your argument and to reference key parts of it later on in discussion. 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 writes: Separate out each of the premises, the axioms, and the conclusions: You want me to present an argument against axiomatic "derived from nothing" conclusions on the basis of "derived from nothing" axioms? Are you serious? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
You won't like it because it isn't based on "derived from nothing" axioms. But here is the argument against your position.
The argument that scientific conclusions are the result of logical deductions made from derived from nothing axioms is functionally equivalent to the argument that scientific conclusions are the result of deductions made from blind random guesses. This means that scientific conclusions themselves are functionally equivalent to blind random guesses. But science has demonstrated itself as being able to make conclusions which are demonstrably superior in terms of reliability to blind random guesses (e.g. the timings of eclipses) Thus scientific conclusions are not functionally equivalent to blind random guesses. Thus Jon’s view of scientific methodology is wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
My argument is still that inductive arguments are deductive arguments with missing premises. It is true that you can make any inductive argument deductive by the use of arbitrary premises. This ultimately boils down to something stupid like: Premise 1: All known swans are whitePremise 2: Inductive logic leads to true conclusions. Conclusion: All swans are white But this doesn't undermine the argument that inductive logic is used in science. It just reasserts that deductive logic doesn't lead to conclusions that aren't contained in the premises that were chosen by the logician in question. Furthermore - if we agree that 'all inductive reasoning is deduction with unstated premises' then that still doesn't undermine the claim 'science uses inductive reasoning'. It means that it is equivalent to say that 'science uses deductive reasoning with unstated premises', not that the claim 'science does not use inductive reasoning' is true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Mod writes: It is true that you can make any inductive argument deductive by the use of arbitrary premises. You can make anything be anything you want based on "arbitrary premises". Which is exactly why Jon's "derived from nothing" axiomatic approach is a recipe for stupidity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
You want me to present an argument against axiomatic "derived from nothing" conclusions on the basis of "derived from nothing" axioms? You needn't present any axioms in your argument. Jon Edited by Jon, : typsoe Check out Apollo's Temple! Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Furthermore - if we agree that 'all inductive reasoning is deduction with unstated premises' then that still doesn't undermine the claim 'science uses inductive reasoning'. It means that it is equivalent to say that 'science uses deductive reasoning with unstated premises', not that the claim 'science does not use inductive reasoning' is true. I am not really arguing on the scientific induction debate. In as much as induction is deduction with unstated premises, I'd say Science makes extensive use of 'induction'.
It just reasserts that deductive logic doesn't lead to conclusions that aren't contained in the premises that were chosen by the logician in question. Science is a human institution. Humans understand things by relating them in terms they can comprehend. Even if the information in the conclusion is already in the premises (which I agree it must be), its restatement and/or summary into humanly-comprehensible terms is what is important. We don't do all this for the birds or the fishwe do Science for us; that we may comprehend; that we may understand.
This ultimately boils down to something stupid like: Premise 1: All known swans are whitePremise 2: Inductive logic leads to true conclusions. Conclusion: All swans are white What will happen will be that your conclusion will rest on the willingness of the audience to accept P2. The more acceptable your premises/axioms, the more convincing your argument. Thus: A1: Anything yellow is squareP1: The Sun is yellow C: The Sun is square ...is valid, but only as convincing as the willingness of the audience to buy into A1. Combine this with the fact that this is a Science threadmeaning that we work off the axiom that empirical things are true, and all conclusions must be empirically falsifiableand the number and type of axioms we can utilize w/out contradiction becomes significantly limited. So, I see no problem explaining Science in completely deductive terms. 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