Induction and Science

Except that here we are dealing with Science, which severely constrains the axioms we can have and conclusions we can derive. I am thoroughly convinced that you have failed to comprehend my argument. Perhaps this has been due to my own lack of clarity, but as you've yet to ask any questions about my argument, I have been unable to pinpoint where the lack clarity lies. Which is too bad, because I would love to help you understand what I am saying. Nevertheless, if you want to continue to bash my argument based on this misunderstanding, then I suppose you are free to do so. But, keep in mind it will have no bearing on my actual argument.JonEdited by Jon, : No reason given.

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

Gday Well, here is the reference from Juvenal :'Rara avis in terris nigroque simillima cycno. '
"A bird rarely seen on earth, and very like a black swan."
Satires 6, 165(Juvenal chose a black swan for his comparison because the Romans had no idea that black swans even existed and so it was considered as impossible as a white crow.)From :
Latin Proverbs, Mottoes, Phrases, and Words: Group R - Word Information What do you think is made-up ?K.

Gday again,Augustine also makes a reference to a black swan (as something that does not exist, like a bird with 4 feet.)"For who ever saw a black swan? And therefore no one remembers a black swan; yet who is there that cannot conceive it? For it is easy to apply to that shape which we have come to know by seeing it, a black color, which we have not the less seen in other bodies; and because we have seen both, we remember both. Neither do I remember a bird with four feet, because I never saw one; but I contemplate such a phantasy very easily, by adding to some winged shape such as I have seen, two other feet, such as I have likewise seen."On the Trinity, Book XI, Chap 10K.

Might I suggest that your argument is therefore off topic? If something is falsifiable it means an example could arise that contradicts the conclusion. In a valid deductive argument this means we'd have to show a premise to be false:Premise 1: All swans are white.
Premise 2: X is a swan
Conclusion: X is whiteIf Premise 1 is falsifiable, it means that it is a statement that was made with incomplete information (basically by definition: it means some information could come to light that contradicts the premise). Premise 2 is a definition, so is not falsifiable. If Premise 1 is classed as a definition then by definition a black swan is not a swan and the argument is unfalsifiable.So there needs to be 'room' for wrongness, which implies a general statement was made from incomplete information that turns out to be false when further information is acquired. A1 isn't an axiom, it's a premise (assuming you are labeling A as an axiom) Your axioms here would be part of your definition of deductive reasoning, inescapable truths if you want to be saying anything at all using deduction, which you rightly don't state because it's a pain in the arse to state them all the time.Anyway, your Premise A1 would be something derived inductively by human beings observing yellow things and seeing that they are all square and deciding this was a general principle. It would be falsified by a single example of something yellow that is not a square.

It very well could be. But I made the statement, and was ruthlessly opposed; so I fought back. If you mean 'incomplete information' in the sense that there are facts that exist which have not been considered/observed, then indeed, this is the only way to falsify this statement. But there is nothing about turning an inductive argument into a deductive one that says (a) your assumptions must not contradict unknown facts, (b) your conclusion must end up being true. Thus, I see this as having no bearing on my statement that inductive arguments are merely deductive ones with unstated premises. Are you saying this of an argument or a premise? If of the premise, see above; if of the argument, see below:P1: The Sun is pink
C1: The Sun is not yellowAn observation could be blatantly wrong. Thus, there is no need for 'general statements made from incomplete information' in order to provide the 'room' in an argument for 'wrongness'. No, it would not be. The fact that I stated the axiom despite being unable to think of anything square and yellow is proof that I can state this axiom without it having any inductive basis whatsoever. Your, and Straggler's, insistence that you can divine the source of axioms is just malarkey. If I state it as an axiom, it is an axiom; it may enjoy some special status as an axiom, but it also must suffer through the consequence of being entirely and wholly refutable at the will of anyone who dislikes it.But even if it were a premise 'inductively' derived, its 'inductive' derivation could easily be shown to be deduction with missing premises. Speaking of which, why are you arguing against this? I thought you admitted to it already upthread... JonEdited by Jon, : some readability issues fixed

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

But the axioms of deductive logic state that if the premises are true, the conclusion is necessarily true, as long as the deductive rules of inference are followed.The point was simply to point out that induction exists in the midst of your deductive arguments in the guise of premises if you have falsifiable deductive arguments. So even if you describe science in deductive mode - you still have induction as well. If you remove all induction completely, then you are not saying anything about the world whatsoever, and since science is about the world - you've ceased doing science and you are just doing logic. The premise needs to be falsified since the conclusion is necessarily true if the premise is (if it is valid deduction). In scientific deduction, the premises are inferred by inductive inference. Yes, this is logic, but it isn't science. Unless you have based your premise that the sun is pink empirically (which may well be true ). If you have done then the inducted form isP1: The Sun was yellow the last 10,000 times I looked at it
P2: The Sun has never been NOTyellow
C1: The Sun is always coloured yellow.Which forms the premise, P1AP1A: The sun is yellow
C1A: The sun is not greenThis then tells us something real about the actual world - which may be false. Right now it is night time, maybe by the time the sun rises next here it will have turned green. Maybe it is green right now. That makes it falsifiable and that's because of the induction behind the premise P1A. Then it wasn't anything to do with science. And the topic here is induction in science. If you've found resistance to your notions, you might well find it is because people think you are on topic when you aren't. But we're not making up rules of logic here, we're not creating a formal system. We're talking about an already existing one with already existing axioms. If you want to talk about your own logical system in which 'square things are yellow' is a necessary fundamental truth, you should start a thread on that.In your system of logic, the sun is square - since it is axiomatic that yellow things are 'square'. It doesn't mean anything because we have defined what 'yellow' or 'square' is other than if a thing has property 'yellow' it has property 'is square'. You made an error of logic I'm afraid. I said that one can create premises to make an inductive form argument a deductive one. I also pointed out that even if we accept your argument as true, it doesn't remove induction from science it just gives us another way of saying 'induction'. That doesn't mean that an inductive argument is a deduction with 'missing' premises.An inductive argument is one in which the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. Sure - you can create premises out of thin air that necessarily lead to the conclusion (indeed - in some systems this is an axiom) in a deductive fashion - but then you've changed the argument.That's like saying all red cars are blue cars which I haven't sprayed blue. Sure, I can make any red car blue with enough blue paint, but it's kind of a stupid thing to go around saying, right? Of course we can change an argument, of course we can change the colour of cars, of course we can turn a poem into prose or prose into poetry. We could even make the argument that all invalid deductive arguments are valid deductive arguments with unstated premises that render them valid.So yes all X is Y after we change the things about X which differentiate it from Y.Since we're talking science - and not pure logic - we have to engage in induction at some point. You cannot deduce anything general about the empirical realm without some inductive logic, since we unavoidably can only work from specific experiences in empiricismEdited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Not true. There is nothing about an observation that prevents it from serving as a premise in a deductive argument. If these observations are about the world, then we can indeed say much about the world with deduction only. Of course; but all that 'induction' is just deduction with missing premises/axioms. Sure; but all that 'induction' is just deduction with missing premises/axioms. Maybe, but all that 'induction' is just deduction with missing premises/axioms. Even if true, all that 'induction' is just deduction with missing premises/axioms. Certainly you do not mean that anything axiomatically asserted cannot be scientifically functional... do you? You've lost me. Are you only fussing over my wording? Why live in such a world? If only we admit to a degree of error/uncertainty in our conclusion that is related to the probability of our premises to support it, we no longer need this 'does not necessarily follow' crap and can get on being honest with ourselves.P: Three Crowes wear black shoes.
C: If all Crowes wear the same color shoes, all Crowes wear black shoes.This is a simple, honest, 100% premise-backed conclusion that does not give the slightest impression of voodoo logic. In fact, I would say that this is the way real, honest Science functions. It is also completely deductive! The argument's changed; the reasoning's stayed the same. As I already pointed out, given the constraint that we are, in this thread, dealing with Science, our axioms must so conform, or at least not conflict. Indeed, but, as I already pointed out, given the constraint that we are, in this thread, dealing with Science, our axioms must so conform, or at least not conflict. This is not wholly true. My argument is that the reasoning is deductive whether the premises/axioms are part of the argument or not. Below the surface of the inductive argument, the reasonings must be deductive; if not, then we're left with invalid, silly, voodoo logic. Then perhaps we should stop trying to do that!Jon

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

For example? No, I would have said that if that is what I meant. I said your axiom was not an axiom used in scientific reasoning. No. I was pointing out that I was not saying what you thought I was saying. We haven't a choice, it seems. Yes, but then that would be inductive since the premises only support the conclusion with a certain degree of confidence (ie., there is some uncertainty). A deductive conclusion cannot begin 'if'. The correct argument isP1: Three Crowes wear black shoes
P2: All Crowes wear the same colour shoes
C: All Crowes wear black shoes.The reason we don't do this in science is because there is no evidence to support the empirical claim of P2. And if there were, unless it was complete evidence an inductive leap would need to be made. If Complete evidence were available no logic needed, the conclusion is observed to be true. We've gone from inductive reasoning to deductive reasoning. The reasoning has changed. I'm afraid we're stuck with invalid, silly, voodoo logic. As Hume said

quote:

---

The bread, which I formerly eat, nourished me; that is, a body of such sensible qualities was, at that time, endued with such secret powers: but does it follow, that other bread must also nourish me at another time, and that like sensible qualities must always be attended with like secret powers? The consequence seems nowise necessary. At least, it must be acknowledged that there is here a consequence drawn by the mind; that there is a certain step taken; a process of thought, and an inference, which wants to be explained. These two propositions are far from being the same, I have found that such an object has always been attended with such an effect, and I foresee, that other objects, which are, in appearance, similar, will be attended with similar effects. I shall allow, if you please, that the one proposition may justly be inferred from the other: I know, in fact, that it always is inferred. But if you insist that the inference is made by a chain of reasoning, I desire you to produce that reasoning. The connexion between these propositions is not intuitive. There is required a medium, which may enable the mind to draw such an inference, if indeed it be drawn by reasoning and argument. What that medium is, I must confess, passes my comprehension; and it is incumbent on those to produce it, who assert that it really exists, and is the origin of all our conclusions concerning matter of fact.

---

Stop deducing anything general about the empirical realm making use of inductive reasoning? Then we wouldn't be doing science, we'd be just be measuring things.Edited by Modulous, : clairified closing sentences.

No it doesn't, partly because it wasn't your real conclusion. Neither was it anyone else's real conclusion. Your actual conclusion was that it would be absurd to conclude that all Crowes wear black shoes. Read your O.P., and you'll see that I'm correct. Exactly. The absurd cases are often described as "weak induction". Try "use all the relevant information you can think of to decide whether your premises/observations are significantly supportive of the hypothesis you're considering, and examine any alternative hypotheses that might also be supported by them."Examine your own thought processes in relation to the O.P. example. How did you come to your real conclusion, which was that it would be absurd to conclude that there was a connection between the shoe colour and the name? You pruned easily, and so would everyone else reading that O.P. Crows aren't actually all one colour, and they're not named after a colour, as far as I know. Blackbirds are named after a colour, but they're not all black. But I see what you're getting at. Crows are a biological group which can be expected to share characteristics, but "Crowes" can't really be described as a biological (or cultural) sub-group within humans.However, I don't think that's the first reason that your example didn't work. It's simply that three people with anything in common (red hair, very long noses, etc.) wearing the most common colour of shoe is unremarkable to start with. So, even if you'd described the three people as working for a specific company (which might have a dress code) you've still got too little information to infer a connection. Why not the two combined? The "systematicity" is, in a sense, the "pruning", and is what makes the scientific theories which rely on inductive reasoning more reliable than the casual theories we make in everyday life, certainly. But even in everyday life, many people are pretty good at pruning most of the time. They bring all the relevant observations they can think of to bear on the question.I repeat: you pruned correctly in your O.P., and in order to have an example to make your case, it would have been better to use a real one with which a lot of people are known to have come to an absurd conclusion in science. Even with a few such examples, you're stuck with using inductive reasoning (ironically) if you want to suggest that inductive reasoning is useless to science.Despite the strong tone of the O.P., perhaps you are now on the way to agreeing that inductive reasoning (combined with what you call the "systematicity" of science) can and does play a role in science.Had you stated that inductive arguments need careful pruning in order to be useful to science, I think there would've been widespread agreement. Edited by bluegenes, : pruned extra word!

That reads like word salad. You are way off.I see science as being about getting precise information about the world, in order to be able answer questions (and make predictions). Precise definitions and precise standards are part of what is required for precise information.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

That seems to be an unlikely theory. I have never seen documentation for that alleged induction. The fact is, that the black water fowl discovered in Australia had only an aboriginal name at that time, and were of an entirely different species from the knows swans. So what you are saying is that you have no actual evidence of induction, you just think that there must have been one. That is to say, you are relying on the good old fashioned argument from ignorance. It does not follow that they are using induction. They are examining a range of behavior, and usually not asserting that all behave in the same way. Using sampling methods to estimate ranges actually has a deductive basis.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

Indeed, we could. And we would probably miss the target.That's why actual space missions involve continual measuring of position, and adjusting the flight with small rocket firings, in order to keep it on target.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

I have not said anything which would have that implication.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

That may be what you believe. But you have failed to articulate a method by which it can be done.Edited by Stephen Push, : No reason given.

You assert that as "indisputable fact", yet you have not produced any evidence to back that up. I think you would have to be able to read the minds of those "real scientists" to know whether or not they could be said to be using induction. Whether some scientists actually use induction (a possibility that I have acknowledged) does not address the question of whether science as an institution depends on induction (which is what I have questioned). I don't know what objection you could have to guesses and opinions. The future is inherently unknowable. The best we can do is make conclusions of the form "if nature continues to behave as it has in the past, then ...(prediction)... That the conditional part of that is often not made explicit does not mean that it is not implicitly there. You word that as if you are expressing a disagreement. But I do not see that it disagrees with anything that I have said. I disagree with the often expressed view that theories are models.If you hire a contractor to do some major work on an old tall building, the first thing the contractor will do is erect a scaffolding to give better access to the building. The scaffolding will have roughly the shape of the building, but it won't be a model.I see a scientific theory as a kind of scaffolding that we construct to give us better access to reality. We do have to make sure that the scaffolding fits well enough to be useful, but we don't have to make it a model. In fact, it is often better for the scaffolding to have a rather simpler and more mathematical structure that the reality to which it provides access. That scaffolding not only is not a model of the building, but it also is not a description of the building (i.e. it says nothing about the building). Likewise, I suggest that our theories, as a scaffolding that we erect to access reality, are neither models nor descriptions of reality. What they do is provide us the access we need to make very precise observations of reality. I think I have just done that in the preceding couple of paragraphs.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie