|
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 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen Push Member (Idle past 4890 days) Posts: 140 From: Virginia, USA Joined: |
nwr writes: 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. I'm not sure what you are trying to claim. Is it your position that the black swans of Australia are not in fact swans? Or are you saying that they did not become swans until Europeans named them?
So what you are saying is that you have no actual evidence of induction, you just think that there must have been one. No. The evidence of induction is right there in black and white in the crow paper. Induction is such a routine part of science -- and life -- that you are not likely to find a paper in which the authors announce, "We are hereby using induction." (And if they did, I'm sure you wouldn't believe them.) There is no way to apply the results of a limited sample to the whole population without induction.
They are examining a range of behavior, and usually not asserting that all behave in the same way. It's true they allow that some other crows might behave differently, but they are definitely exptrapolating beyond the limited number of crows actually observed. That recquired inductive reasoning.
Using sampling methods to estimate ranges actually has a deductive basis. While probabilites and statistics are based on deduction, their application to the natural and social sciences involves induction. In fact, there would be no need for statistical tests if researchers were making claims only about the individuals studied. The purpose of statistical analysis in science is to estimate the validity of applying data from a sample of individuals to the "universe" of all relevant individuals.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Panda writes:
There is none. So what? It a completely irrelevant point. The information comes via making observations. The definitions are preliminary ground work such as is needed for making such observations.
Your conclusion is a re-statement of your premise. "A swan (by definition) is white" is identical to "All swans are white". What is the information "not previously noticed" - be specific. Panda writes:
Not so, given the assumed definition. It is trivially deducible from the definition.To state that all non-white birds are not swans requires inductive reasoning. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
For example? Modulous is a human.
I said your axiom was not an axiom used in scientific reasoning. True, indeed. That's the beauty of having a refined topic; it helps us sort out which of the infinite axioms we may or may not insert willy nilly. This is something Straggler has yet to realize: we can have axioms in our system without having to accept every axiom ever invented, such as the 'stupid' ones.
No. I was pointing out that I was not saying what you thought I was saying. Okay. I see you are talking about the argument itself as opposed to the underlying reasoning. Indeed, we may have an 'inductive' argument, but this we must accept is either: Representative of a deductive reasoning with premises that have been removed; orRepresentative of invalid, silly, voodoo logic reasoning. 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). No. Just because the conclusion itself is weak/conditional does not mean that the premises cannot support that conclusion 100%. There is no uncertainty in the conclusion; the conclusion is a conditional, and given the premise 'Three Crowes wear black shoes', it is 100% certain that the conclusion 'If all Crowes wear the same color shoes, all Crowes wear black shoes' is true. Granted, our conclusion isn't very strong, nor does it assert much about the actual world; but this is unavoidable given our poor premise and the fact that we are attempting to avoid the use of invalid, silly, voodoo logic. Best part, though, it's honest!
A deductive conclusion cannot begin 'if' Blatantly false. All deductive arguments can be rewritten as an endless string of conditionals, this does not change their essential form: A1: All humans are mortalP1: Modulous is a human C: Modulous is mortal becomes... C: If all humans are mortal, then if Modulous is a human, Modulous is mortal. (A→(P→C)) You are being picky about the wording, but it is not about wording; it is about form, and the two arguments above are effectively identical in form. All that has changed is the strength of our conclusion to assert things; but this is not, of course, a problem of form.
P1: Three Crowes wear black shoes P2: All Crowes wear the same colour shoes C: All Crowes wear black shoes. There is, as I've already pointed out, no formal difference between this argument and the one I gave. They are both deductive. We may be able to argue based on whether we've called our parts premises or axioms, but that is just a semantic issue and does not impact the form of the argument. All that has changed is the strength of our conclusion to assert things; but this is not, of course, a problem of form.
We've gone from inductive reasoning to deductive reasoning. The reasoning has changed. Bullshit. We can change our argument without changing our reasoning; just like we can tell a story and leave parts outtheir absence in the spoken story does not erase them from our mind! If reasoning is the internalized mental process, and the argument is that thinking verbalized, then there is no reason to expect an individual to relate every aspect of their reasoning in their argument. If we go back and add the missing parts to their argument to make it match their reasoning, that, of course, does not impact their reasoning.
I'm afraid we're stuck with invalid, silly, voodoo logic. Of course, I never said that it is not done.
As Hume said Good for Hume. But his reasoning really is invalid, silly, voodoo logic. And while it may be perfectly fine to rely on such reasoning for feeding ourselves (I'd say it is), should we really be doing Science with it? Isn't that the point of this thread? Whether this invalid, silly, voodoo logic is suitable for Science?
Then we wouldn't be doing science, we'd be just be measuring things. Not at all! As I've said before:
quote: 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: 5.3 |
Kapyong writes:
That's interesting, but does not seem relevant.
'Rara avis in terris nigroque simillima cycno. ' "A bird rarely seen on earth, and very like a black swan." Satires 6, 165 Kapyong writes:
The often told story that explorers spotted a black swan in Australia, and thereby refuted an alleged induction.What do you think is made-up ? Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
bluegenes writes:
Quite right. And that's why real scientists don't actually make such inductions.Crows aren't actually all one colour, and they're not named after a colour, as far as I know. Incidentally, the crows I was familiar with in my youth in Australia where pretty nearly pitch black. The crows that I see around here (surburban Chicago) are more of a gray - and that's assuming that there are any crows left. The crows around here fell victim to West Nile virus, and I rarely see them now.
nwr writes: Part of what I am arguing in this thread, is that a lot of what is credited to induction should instead be credited to the systematicity of science. Panda writes:
Because if you are sufficiently systematic, then you don't need the induction. The systematicity gives you are rather homogeneous group that you are studying. And if it is sufficiently homogeneous you can use statistical analysis (which is actually deductive) for reaching the kind of conclusions that you want.Why not the two combined? Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
nwr writes: I see science as being about getting precise information about the world, in order to be able answer questions (and make predictions). Stephen Push writes:
Perhaps I have been too busy responding, to state it clearly enough.That may be what you believe. But you have failed to articulate a method by which it can be done. The point is that we make precise definitions, and then use those definitions as the basis for observations. Those observations are where the precise information comes from. Before we settle on particular definitions, there's a lot of pragmatic testing as to whether it works and whether the resulting information is actually useful. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Stephen Push writes:
I am saying that they were not swans until they were so named.Is it your position that the black swans of Australia are not in fact swans? Or are you saying that they did not become swans until Europeans named them? In particular, their discovery could not have been contrary to an alleged induction that was made before such naming. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Modulous is a human. OK - and what are you going to do with that premise that can say much about the world?
Representative of a deductive reasoning with premises that have been removed; or Representative of invalid, silly, voodoo logic reasoning. It's the invalid silly voodoo logic. Philosophers have wrestled with it, decided it is 'technically' invalid logic, but that it's here to stay.
Just because the conclusion itself is weak/conditional does not mean that the premises cannot support that conclusion 100% Exactly. The premises must support the conclusion 100% in deduction. Since the conclusion is not supported 100% it is not a deductive argument.
There is no uncertainty in the conclusion; the conclusion is a conditional Conclusions are conditional on the the premises, not conditional statements themselves. A conditional statement 'if x then y' is itself a deductive argument or part of one, not a deductively derived conclusion. If Premise 1 is true and If Premise 2 is true then conclusion is true. That's deductive logic. If your conclusion has some conditional in it, this means a premise has been merged into the conclusion - which is misleading.
Granted, our conclusion isn't very strong, nor does it assert much about the actual world; but this is unavoidable given our poor premise and the fact that we are attempting to avoid the use of invalid, silly, voodoo logic. Best part, though, it's honest! Inductive logic can be perfectly honest. The conclusion is preceded with {Premises}Therefore, with degree of support {p} {Conclusion} A deductive conclusion cannot begin 'if' Blatantly false. All deductive arguments can be rewritten as an endless string of conditionals, this does not change their essential form
What you said is fine, but it doesn't mean what I said was blatantly false.
A1: All humans are mortal P1: Modulous is a human C: Modulous is mortal becomes... C: If all humans are mortal, then if Modulous is a human, Modulous is mortal. (A(PC)) But your conclusion isn't a conclusion it is an argument.
You are being picky about the wording, but it is not about wording; it is about form, and the two arguments above are effectively identical in form. All that has changed is the strength of our conclusion to assert things; but this is not, of course, a problem of form. There is no change in the strength of the conclusion, they are exactly equivalent and the conclusion in each case necessarily follows from the premises - even if you choose to name your conclusions and premises 'apples' and 'bananas'. {AbE -By adding conditionals explicitly in your wording - you aren't adding uncertainty, just redundancy. We can in fact appeal to a real axiom for this: quote: Conditionals are already built into the evaluation of a deductive argument, so writing them out is redundant and doesn't make the conclusion less certain than it already was.} Bullshit. We can change our argument without changing our reasoning By inserting premises in - we've changed it from inductive reasoning to deductive reasoning. By definition, this is a change in reasoning.
Good for Hume. But his reasoning really is invalid, silly, voodoo logic. Yep.
it may be perfectly fine to rely on such reasoning for feeding ourselves Unless you would assert that the statement, "Bread nourishes humans", is an unscientific conclusion - you must also accept that it is fine for science too.
And while it may be perfectly fine to rely on such reasoning for feeding ourselves (I'd say it is), should we really be doing Science with it? Whether we 'should' or not is hardly the point. We do. And what's more if you don't do it, you aren't doing science - you're just doing logic.
Isn't that the point of this thread? Whether this invalid, silly, voodoo logic is suitable for Science? No, it is whether it is intrinsically part of science. Which it is.
Not at all! Let me know when you can say something about the world 'now' with just 'observations' from then and deductions.
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.
If science is just re-ordering observations then, as I said, it is just about measuring things. This does not counter my assertion that it would just be measuring things. For all your championing deductive reasoning, and despite Hume's challenge, you've failed to provide the deductive reasoning that could lead to any scientific claim about the real world. Unless you move on and say 'these observations lead us tentatively to the conclusion that in general...with degree of support p' you aren't doing anything resembling science. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen Push Member (Idle past 4890 days) Posts: 140 From: Virginia, USA Joined: |
nwr writes: I am saying that they were not swans until they were so named. It is tautological to say that black swans were not "swans" until someone applied that name to them. But whatever people called them, black members of the genus Cygnus were living in Australia. And anyone familiar with the other members of the genus would immediately recognize them as a type of swan, with the notable exception that they have black plumage.
In particular, their discovery could not have been contrary to an alleged induction that was made before such naming. The world is not required to conform to our beliefs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen Push Member (Idle past 4890 days) Posts: 140 From: Virginia, USA Joined: |
nwr writes: The point is that we make precise definitions, and then use those definitions as the basis for observations. Those observations are where the precise information comes from. Before we settle on particular definitions, there's a lot of pragmatic testing as to whether it works and whether the resulting information is actually useful. I don't see anything wrong with that, as far as it goes. But science doesn't stop there. Science makes statements that can apply to unobserved phenomena.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
OK - and what are you going to do with that premise that can say much about the world? Again, as I've said before. The importance in Science is not just in observing new things, but in taking the information gained in those observations and arranging it in ways that make it understandable. Everyone saw the apple fall; everyone knew when it left the tree; when it hit the ground. Newton didn't show us anything we didn't already see; he showed us what we saw but in a way we could understand it.
Philosophers have wrestled with it, decided it is 'technically' invalid logic, but that it's here to stay. It exists; is it Science?
Jon writes: Just because the conclusion itself is weak/conditional does not mean that the premises cannot support that conclusion 100% Exactly. The premises must support the conclusion 100% in deduction. Since the conclusion is not supported 100% it is not a deductive argument. But that's not what I said. I said that the premise supports the conclusion 100%. This is all that is necessary in a valid deduction. In the case of the deduction on Crowes' footwear, the premise does just that.
{Premises} Therefore, with degree of support {p} {Conclusion} I fail to see how this is drastically different than the 'if... then' conditional conclusion I presented for the Crowes and their shoes.
But your conclusion isn't a conclusion it is an argument. Malarkey! If it's good enough for a premise, it's good enough for a conclusionthere is, afterall, no difference between the two other than our own arbitrary stopping-point on the logic wheel.
There is no change in the strength of the conclusion, they are exactly equivalent This is all dependent on your claim that a conditional cannot serve as a conclusion, which it can.
By inserting premises in - we've changed it from inductive reasoning to deductive reasoning. By definition, this is a change in reasoning. I think you are overlooking my careful distinction between 'argument' and 'reasoning'.
And what's more if you don't do it, you aren't doing science - you're just doing logic. A claim for which you've yet to provide any support.
No, it is whether it is intrinsically part of science. Which it is. Oh, but it is not. It is used by scientists, but that does not make it part of Science.
Let me know when you can say something about the world 'now' with just 'observations' from then and deductions. I am not sure what you are asking from me here. Could you explain, please?
If science is just re-ordering observations then, as I said, it is just about measuring things. Science actually does both: measures, reorders. This is its essence.
For all your championing deductive reasoning, and despite Hume's challenge, you've failed to provide the deductive reasoning that could lead to any scientific claim about the real world. Ahh, but I have. In several instances. (Message 388; if you want it more specific, I can do that for you.)
Unless you move on and say 'these observations lead us tentatively to the conclusion that in general...with degree of support p' you aren't doing anything resembling science. And again, what is the difference between this and the deduction of conditional conclusions? I've a feeling we are arguing for the same thing; you're just not willing to call that for which I am arguing 'deduction' under the belief that deduction cannot create a conditional conclusion. If you too see this as the case, then let's call it semantics and go on our merry ways. Jon [ABE](Reply to ABE):
{AbE - By adding conditionals explicitly in your wording - you aren't adding uncertainty, just redundancy. We can in fact appeal to a real axiom for this: quote: Conditionals are already built into the evaluation of a deductive argument, so writing them out is redundant and doesn't make the conclusion less certain than it already was.} I have not made any claims that the certainty is affected one way or the other. Given the premise(s), the certainty of the conclusion is equal in both of these: A1: All humans are mortalP1: Modulous is a human C: Modulous is mortal C: If all humans are mortal, then if Modulous is a human, Modulous is mortal. (A→(P→C)) Given the premise(s), the certainty is 100%, as the arguments are both valid.[/ABE] Edited by Jon, : Reply to ABE Check out Apollo's Temple! Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
If you'd rather not go down the rabbit hole of the previous post allow me to issue a challenge:
Take any number observations you like as your premises.Use only those axioms used regularly in the scientific method. Make a scientific prediction using deduction. You cannot make stuff up - all premises must be empirically true or tautologous. So, if your premise is All humans are mortal You would be asserting that you have observed the mortality of all humans.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
So, if your premise is All humans are mortal You would be asserting that you have observed the mortality of all humans. But it's not my premise; it's my axiom. It is something I am taking for granted without making any claims as to its actual truth.
If you'd rather not go down the rabbit hole of the previous post allow me to issue a challenge: Take any number observations you like as your premises.Use only those axioms used regularly in the scientific method. Make a scientific prediction using deduction. You cannot make stuff up - all premises must be empirically true or tautologous. If you want to restrict us in such a way, then you may do so. We must only then reword our argument to rename our axiom the antecedent: P: Mod is a humanC: If all humans are mortal, Mod is mortal. But this doesn't really change anything. Your restriction that we can only use axioms regularly used in the scientific method goes no further in eliminating our use of 'assumptions' than my restriction that our axioms not contradict aspects of the scientific method. It just requires us to rename some things... shake the bag a little. So, again, I fear our debate is merely semantic Jon Check out Apollo's Temple! Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Again, as I've said before. The importance in Science is not just in observing new things, but in taking the information gained in those observations and arranging it in ways that make it understandable Actually no - that's just empirical book keeping. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction is not something that Newton observed.
It exists; is it Science? No - but it exists within science.
But that's not what I said. I said that the premise supports the conclusion 100%. This is all that is necessary in a valid deduction. In the case of the deduction on Crowes' footwear, the premise does just that. Then you are now saying this is not an uncertain deduction? Then we agree. You had previously been talking about something else:
quote: Probability of premises to support the conclusion is not 100%, it is not deduction. It is precisely inductive logic in which the premises support, rather than necessitate 100%, the conclusion, with a potentially calculable degree of certainty.
I fail to see how this is drastically different than the 'if... then' conditional conclusion I presented for the Crowes and their shoes. Deductive arguments say
quote: Inductive arguments say
quote: If your Crowe argument is the latter - it is inductive not deductive. Where's the induction?
quote: All Crowes? If this is possibly false then it must be inductively derived. The correct deduction should be:
quote: Takes the teeth out of it right?
Malarkey! If it's good enough for a premise, it's good enough for a conclusionthere is, afterall, no difference between the two other than our own arbitrary stopping-point on the logic wheel. As I said - you can call premises 'bananas' and conclusions 'oranges' and wear a tutu if you like. It can be deceptive to confuse your current argument's premises and conclusions - leading to inadvertent logical fallacies. I was just pointing it out, not saying it altered the deduction.
This is all dependent on your claim that a conditional cannot serve as a conclusion, which it can. No, it is not. That was just a comment on form, to avoid potential confusion. The strength of the conclusion is part of the definition of a deductive argument: The necessity of the conclusion from the premises. As I said, adding 'if' is just redundant and does not 'weaken' the argument or its conclusion and does not add 'uncertainty' where there was once 'certainty'.
Oh, but it is not. It is used by scientists, but that does not make it part of Science. I have no idea what Science is. I'm talking about the thing that scientists do, that makes them scientists...the science part. And that uses induction.
And what's more if you don't do it, you aren't doing science - you're just doing logic. A claim for which you've yet to provide any support. I have supported it. It's fairly straight forward. Without induction all you have are a bunch of observations which you can play about with. You can saying nothing new about the world above and beyond those observations. You are just performing deductive logical exercises on a data set. Science takes data and infers knowledge from it using induction. Science doesn't stop at "Gravity has attracted masses that we've observed according to this relationship..."
Let me know when you can say something about the world 'now' with just 'observations' from then and deductions. I am not sure what you are asking from me here. Could you explain, please? Sure. You have a bunch of observations recorded down. Now deduce something scientific. There's lots of science in the real world. Pick something you like, Show me the money.
Science actually does both: measures, reorders. This is its essence. Not disputing that scientists rearrange their measures. But doing just that would not cover the pursuit of science, would it? Science makes predictions, develops general theories etc.
Ahh, but I have. In several instances. (Message 388; if you want it more specific, I can do that for you.) I see no deductive reasoning, sorry. So yeah, specifics would be good. This:
quote: Is induction, see: "assumed everything worked like the things he saw" - that's an induction.
And again, what is the difference between this and the deduction of conditional conclusions? All conclusions are conditional on the premises that lead to them. In a deductive argument there is no uncertainty in this. The conclusion must be necessarily true because of the premises. This is different to the inductive argument where, if true, the premises only support the conclusion to a certain degree. This is essential in science because in science we have general laws and theories supported by non-general (ie., specific) observations. In science we cannot use the deductionP1: All humans are mortal {we have not observed all humans} P2: Mod is human C: Mod is mortal. In science we'd be more in the position of having to sayP1: Every human that we have observed has died within 200 years C1: This supports, tentatively the conclusion that all humans are mortal. P2: We have observed Mod was a human P3: We have observed that humans remain human until they die. C2: (P3) gives support to the notion that all humans remain human until they die C3: {C1}, {P2} and C2 support the conclusion, with a certain level of confidence that is not 100% "Mod is mortal." I have not made any claims that the certainty is affected one way or the other. Given the premise(s), the certainty of the conclusion is equal in both of these: Yet you said:
quote: So which is it: Do we have uncertainty or not? I argue that in the quote above, you are arguing for induction which is defined as having a certain degree of error related to the probability of our premises to support it. Only if the support is 100% (ie necessary) is it deductive. You asked why live in a world where premises do not necessitate the conclusion. In scientific deduction our premises have to be empirical claims. In order to make any general claim from specific empirical claims - induction has to come into it. There is no way to deduce from "Some pendulums act with the rule 'an action has an equal and opposite reaction'" to "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction" without making up stupid 'patch' premises that are not supported by evidence. You either be upfront about your voodoo induction, or you add voodoo premises. Either way, we're doing voodoo. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
But it's not my premise; it's my axiom. It is something I am taking for granted without making any claims as to its actual truth. It is not an axiom, it is a premise. It is a proposition you are using to support a conclusion, it is a premise. It is not being assumed true to see where it leads, it is not self-evident and it is not a universally accepted rule.
So, again, I fear our debate is merely semantic Your argument certainly seems to be. But you seem to think you can say something about the world using deductive logic and observations. Here is what you came up with
quote: I have to stop you right here. You have not observed that all humans are mortal. You can only use premises (and it is a premise even if you call it a banana (or a conclusion)) that you have observed or deduced from the given axioms. So, here is what we actually have so far P1: Mod is humanP2: Some humans are mortal C: Mod might be mortal. We've hardly made a scientific prediction here have we? We predict that Mod might die? Great. Way to be unfalsifiable. If we play your game and say that your conclusion is
quote: Then the only prediction we can make with this is again Mod might die. Try again, if you please. I will use inductive reasoning to make something closer to a scientific looking conclusion to show you how its done. P1: Every human that we have observed has died within 200 years of livingC1: This supports, tentatively the conclusion that all humans are mortal. P2: We have observed Mod was a human P3: We have observed that humans remain human until they die. C2: (P3) gives support to the notion that all humans remain human until they die C3: {C1}, {P2} and C2 support the conclusion, with a certain level of confidence that is not 100% "Mod is mortal." Prediction: Mod will die within 200 years.Falsification: Mod survives to 201 years old. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024