|
Author
|
Topic: Induction and Science
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6411 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 4.9
|
Re: Universal Principles
Stephen Push writes: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?
I am saying that they were not swans until they were so named. In particular, their discovery could not have been contrary to an alleged induction that was made before such naming.
Jesus was a liberal hippie
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 489 by Stephen Push, posted 11-20-2010 5:21 PM | | nwr has seen this message but not replied |
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6411 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 4.9
|
|
Message 502 of 744 (592748)
11-21-2010 6:45 PM
|
Reply to: Message 496 by Panda
11-20-2010 8:42 PM
|
|
Re: Universal Principles
Panda writes:Well, that is the definition of deductive reasoning - it increases our knowledge.
No, that is not the definition of deductive reasoning.
Panda writes:To quote yourself: "it helps to reveal information already in the premises that had not been previously noticed". That is actually an inadequate definition of deductive reasoning, but it at least acknowledges that new information is produced.
That was never intended to be a definition, and it is quite explicit that no new information is produced.
Panda writes:By definition: you cannot make general/universal rules/laws using deductive reasoning.
Who came up with that absurdity? It is refuted on just about every page of a mathematics book.
Jesus was a liberal hippie
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 496 by Panda, posted 11-20-2010 8:42 PM | | Panda has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 508 by Panda, posted 11-21-2010 7:55 PM | | nwr has replied |
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6411 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 4.9
|
Re: Universal Principles
Straggler writes:Doing calculations that pertain to future events (e.g. landing the rocket before you actually land it) indisputably rely on nature (i.e. gravity and suchlike) actually operating in accordance with previous observations and complying with thos calculations.
Doing calculations depends only on the mathematics being correct.
Jesus was a liberal hippie
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 500 by Straggler, posted 11-21-2010 6:22 PM | | Straggler has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 506 by Straggler, posted 11-21-2010 7:09 PM | | nwr has seen this message but not replied |
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6411 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 4.9
|
Re: Nwr: "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves"
Straggler writes:If our scientific theories "have nothing to say about how nature behaves" how can our scientific theories tell us (tentatively) what is physically possible or impossible?
A lens has nothing to say about grass. But I can still mount the lens in a camera, and use it to take a photograph of the grass, and then I can use information from that photograph to plan where to plant a tree in the grass. You are completely missing the point.
Straggler writes:On what principles do you think your computer was constructed?
The principles are not design specifications, and the design specifications are not the principles.
Jesus was a liberal hippie
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 501 by Straggler, posted 11-21-2010 6:27 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6411 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 4.9
|
Re: Nwr: "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves"
Straggler writes:So you continue to deny the existence of universal scientific principles or the ability of science to draw conclusions about the future behaviour of the world on the basis of these principles?
I haven't actually said that. I prefer that you don't make stuff up.
Straggler writes:All are examples of scientific principles which are considered by science to accurately describe the behaviour of nature universally.
My view is similar to that of instrumentalism: In the philosophy of science, instrumentalism is the view that a concept or theory should be evaluated by how effectively it explains and predicts phenomena, as opposed to how accurately it describes objective reality. As you can see, instrumentalism holds that theories are not descriptions.
Straggler writes:You have (at best) loosely described how it is that science works as an explanatory framework for already known observations.
Then you have badly misunderstood what I said.
Jesus was a liberal hippie
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 505 by Straggler, posted 11-21-2010 7:04 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6411 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 4.9
|
|
|
Message 520 of 744 (592872)
11-22-2010 5:08 PM
|
Reply to: Message 508 by Panda
11-21-2010 7:55 PM
|
|
Re: Universal Principles
Panda writes:Thanks for the link. This is a quote from it:
It is not a quote from the definition. It is a quote from the commentary.
Panda writes:By definition: you cannot make general/universal rules/laws using deductive reasoning.
Provide a precise reference to the "definition" that you claim to be using.
Jesus was a liberal hippie
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 508 by Panda, posted 11-21-2010 7:55 PM | | Panda has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 527 by Panda, posted 11-22-2010 5:38 PM | | nwr has replied |
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6411 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 4.9
|
Re: Nwr: "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves"
Straggler writes:So you continue to deny the existence of universal scientific principles or the ability of science to draw conclusions about the future behaviour of the world on the basis of these principles? nwr writes:I haven't actually said that. I prefer that you don't make stuff up. Straggler writes:You said "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves".
That does not say the same thing at all.
Straggler writes:You have also described scientific conclusions regarding the timing of future eclipses as "guesses" and "opinions".
That does not say the same thing, either.
Straggler writes:But instrumentalism doesn't answer the question I asked you. When making predictions why would we possibly expect nature to operate in accordance with our theories unless we are inductively concluding that nature will continue to behave as it has been observed to behaves thus far?
The train was 5 minutes late this morning. Now there's an inductive failure for you (at least on your version of induction).
Jesus was a liberal hippie
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 509 by Straggler, posted 11-21-2010 7:58 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6411 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 4.9
|
Re: Nwr: "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves"
nwr writes:My view is similar to that of instrumentalism: In the philosophy of science, instrumentalism is the view that a concept or theory should be evaluated by how effectively it explains and predicts phenomena, as opposed to how accurately it describes objective reality. Stephen Push writes:Instrumentalism denies that science can make valid inferences about unobservable phenomena.
I only said that my position is similar to instrumentalism, and I quoted the part that fitted. I see nothing about unobservables there. As far as I know, that view of unobservables is from verificationism, which is not my view at all. I'll grant, however, that instrumentalism might have several conflicting versions. I have not attempted to study the literature on it.
Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6411 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 4.9
|
Re: Nwr: "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves"
Straggler writes:So have you decided yet whether or not science is able to reliably and accurately make conclusions about the future behaviour of natural phenomenon?
There is never certainty about the future.
Jesus was a liberal hippie
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 523 by Straggler, posted 11-22-2010 5:30 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6411 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 4.9
|
Re: Nwr: "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves"
Straggler writes:Instrumentalism as I know it is the view that the worth of a scientific theory is derived purely from it's ability to accurately predict the behaviour of nature.
That's why I only said my view was similar, because I certainly don't agree with it as stated that way.
Jesus was a liberal hippie
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 525 by Straggler, posted 11-22-2010 5:36 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6411 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 4.9
|
|
|
Message 529 of 744 (592885)
11-22-2010 5:54 PM
|
Reply to: Message 527 by Panda
11-22-2010 5:38 PM
|
|
Re: Universal Principles
Panda writes:I provided several links. They all concur with my definition.
Great. In the first of the links you provided, I find this:
Everything in the conclusion of a valid deductive argument must also be contained in the premises. (There are rules about how these things are arranged, but that is beyond our purposes here.) Therefore all valid deductive reasoning is by its nature actually circular reasoning or "begging the question."
That sure seems to contradict what you have been claiming.
Jesus was a liberal hippie
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 527 by Panda, posted 11-22-2010 5:38 PM | | Panda has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 533 by Panda, posted 11-22-2010 6:05 PM | | nwr has replied |
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6411 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 4.9
|
Re: Nwr: "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves"
Straggler writes:Do you consider any scientific conclusions to be ones of certainty?
Sure. Conclusions about the logical structure of a theory can be certain. It's the conclusion about reality that are uncertain.
Jesus was a liberal hippie
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 531 by Straggler, posted 11-22-2010 6:03 PM | | Straggler has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 555 by Straggler, posted 11-24-2010 12:29 PM | | nwr has seen this message but not replied |
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6411 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 4.9
|
|
|
Message 549 of 744 (593020)
11-23-2010 6:32 PM
|
Reply to: Message 533 by Panda
11-22-2010 6:05 PM
|
|
Re: Universal Principles
nwr writes:That sure seems to contradict what you have been claiming. Panda writes:I see no contradiction - it agrees with what I said.
It explicitly says "Everything in the conclusion of a valid deductive argument must also be contained in the premises." And that's just a way of saying that it produces nothing new. That directly contradicts what was implied by your question "What new information is deduced?" ( Message 417)
Panda writes:So, no links to any sites that agree with your definition?
WTF? I gave a link to a definition in an earlier post. Then in Message 529, I quoted from your link to support the point.
Jesus was a liberal hippie
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 533 by Panda, posted 11-22-2010 6:05 PM | | Panda has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 553 by Panda, posted 11-23-2010 8:04 PM | | nwr has replied |
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6411 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 4.9
|
Re: Nwr: "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves"
Straggler writes:So in response to a specific question you simply cite a broad philosophical position and then it turns out you don't really agree with most of that either?
I gave a more detailed position in an earlier post. I don't recall that you have commented on it.
Jesus was a liberal hippie
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 532 by Straggler, posted 11-22-2010 6:05 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6411 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 4.9
|
Re: Nwr: "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves"
Straggler writes:Is science is able to make reliable and accurate (albeit tentative) conclusions about the future behaviour of natural phenomena?
I answered that some time ago. It is pointless to keep repeating the same question.
Jesus was a liberal hippie
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 544 by Straggler, posted 11-23-2010 6:41 AM | | Straggler has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2