Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Induction and Science
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 511 of 744 (592810)
11-22-2010 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 509 by Straggler
11-21-2010 7:58 PM


Re: Nwr: "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves"
... explain how a scientific theory can accurately predict the behaviour of nature without first concluding that nature will behave as observed to behave thus far.
I think you are getting things confused, Straggler. A prediction is not accurate at the time it is made; it is accurate at the time it is fulfilled. There is, thus, no reason why 'guesses' and 'opinions' cannot be accurate predictions. Science tends to favor those 'guesses' and 'opinions' that create accurate predictions, along with the assumptions and premises upon which those 'guesses' and 'opinions' are built. That we favor the 'opinions' that have accurately predicted the continued rising and setting of the Sun is good reason to favor some of the assumptions and premises upon which these 'opinions' have been built, for example, the assumption that 'nature will behave as observed to behave thus far'.
But, I think your wording implies some sort of complete certainty (not just favoring) in our conclusion that 'nature will behave as observed to behave thus far'; this notion is ridiculous, and so the confusion between you and nwr is completely understandable.
So, to help clear things up: what certainty do you place in the conclusion that 'nature will behave as observed to behave thus far'?
Jon
Edited by Jon, : +ng

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 509 by Straggler, posted 11-21-2010 7:58 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 512 by Panda, posted 11-22-2010 10:37 AM Jon has replied
 Message 517 by Straggler, posted 11-22-2010 1:38 PM Jon has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 512 of 744 (592812)
11-22-2010 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 511 by Jon
11-22-2010 9:46 AM


Re: Nwr: "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves"
Jon writes:
There is, thus, no reason why 'guesses' and 'opinions' cannot be accurate predictions
A guess can be an accurate prediction.
An opinion can be an accurate prediction.
Jon writes:
Science tends to favor those 'guesses' and 'opinions' that create accurate predictions...
A guess can create an accurate prediction.
An opinion can create an accurate prediction.
Maybe you need to sort out what you are trying to say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 511 by Jon, posted 11-22-2010 9:46 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 514 by Jon, posted 11-22-2010 12:10 PM Panda has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 513 of 744 (592819)
11-22-2010 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 498 by Modulous
11-21-2010 12:17 PM


Re: induction
I should also point out that the correct form is
P1: The Sun rose today
P2: the Sun behaves the same on every day
P3: Tomorrow is a day
C: the Sun will rise tomorrow
You don't need lots of repetitions P1...Pn as you did unless you are trying to 'lend support' to P2,
That was actually the reason they were there; as something of a replacement for your P2. A minor difference, though.
Just show a single example of a predictive deductive argument that doesn't involve making stuff up. You have failed to do this.
Well, let's set aside the 'making stuff up' bit, since (as I'll argue below) induction is equally as guilty. That said, I've provided such a deduction a couple of times now. Let's take a look at Deductive-Newton again: D-Newton's conclusion was that all stuff would be describable by the laws he developed. This is built (deductively) on the premises of his observations and the assumption that all stuff behaved the same. This assumption is a prediction. It can be tested (find other stuff) and falsified (show that it behaves differently). In a scientific conclusion, the predictions will be the unstated implications of that conclusion along with any deductive assumptions required to derive that conclusion. Because it is Science, these assumptions will have to meet special standards, as we've already discussed (for example, D-Newton's assumption is falsifiable).
A general conclusion that is only supported to some degree by the premises
Okay; the support that the premises have toward the conclusion is a separate issue from the truth of the conclusion.
In a deductive argument if the premises are true, the conclusion is necessarily true.
This does not happen in science. We can never say a general conclusion is necessarily true unless we're just talking about maths or logic. There is always tentativity, there is always the possibility of an observation overturning our general laws.
...
We're talking about the challenge of observations and saying anything about the world other than 'we made an observation'. You might observe some parent blackbirds feeding their child blackbirds. This is just an observation, it is not science. Nor is it science to rearrange this and say that some blackbird chicks are fed by some blackbird adults.
It would be a scientific to say 'With some degree of support that is less than 100% - Blackbird parents care for their young"
But you are, again, dealing with two separate issues. Deduction says nothing about the actual truth of anything. The following argument is deductive:
One Crowe wears black shoes
All Crowes wear the same color shoes
∴ All Crowes wear black shoes
It is deductive not because the conclusion is true (its actual truth will hinge on the quality of the premises), but because it is true given the premises. For example, if our second premise (in the general sense) is improbable, then so too is our conclusion. In fact, the degree of improbability of our second premise here will be equal to the degree of improbability of the inductive leap were we to remove this premise. Even beyond that, the total improbability of all the premises, assumptions, and implications of a deductive argument will be equal to the total improbability of all the premises, assumptions, implications, and inductive leaps of the corresponding inductive argument such that the improbability of the conclusion in either (as calculated from these other improbabilities) will be identical. So actual truths aren't affected; as I've said before:
quote:
Jon in Message 497:
The probability of our conclusion being true is related to many things, for example, the quality of our premises. If we take an inductive argument and 'bridge the gap' to make it deductive, we do not have to alter the probability of our conclusion being true. What we do alter, however, is the probability of our conclusion being true given the presented premises. With the induction, it is <100%; with the deduction it is 100%. But the probability of the conclusion being true as a matter of fact remains the same.
...
But, and here is the kicker, whether with or without the 'patch' premises, the actual probability of the conclusion being true is the same.1 The difference is that with the 'patch' premises, the probability of the conclusion being true given the premises goes from <100% to =100%. It's a stronger form, and doesn't hide anything.
...
I am talking about the probability of a conclusion to be true given its premises; you are talking about the probability of a conclusion to actually be true. In either argument (the inductive-form one or deductive-form one), that latter probability will be identical. Thus, we will say that, 'it is 100% true that given our premises, Mod might die' in the first case and 'based on the probability of our premises being true there is a 90% chance Mod might die' in the second case. Changing to deduction doesn't alter the actual truth of our conclusion, it just alters the degree to which our conclusion rests on our premises, changing it from <100% to =100%.
__________
1 After all, the patch required will be equally 'stupid' as the inductive leap required, thus our values stay the same.
Thus, it is not required that deduction make 'necessarily true' conclusions, only that it make conclusions that are necessarily true given the premisesthis is, afterall, its definition. Let's rewrite our Crowe argument with some more substance:
One Crowe in the room wears black shoes
There are ten Crowes in the room
All Crowes in the room wear the same color shoes
∴ All Crowes in the room wear black shoes
or:
One Crowe in the room wears black shoes
There are ten Crowes in the room
Inductive leap!
∴ All Crowes in the room wear black shoes
The deductive conclusion is more fully supported by the stated premises, but neither conclusion is more likely to be true, since the inductive leap is as improbable as the third premise in the deductive argument. In fact, the inductive leap is really just premise three unstated. Premise three just states the inductive leap. And, of course, both arguments are falsifiable, especially when we see that baby Crowe is wearing those cute footie-pajamas with no shoes on at all.
This is inductive. You might say that this is logically invalid - and we would all agree. But, as you say, it works and science is nothing if not pragmatic.
Well then, good deal! Why are we still arguing?
Rather than argue incessantly over your unusual logical terminology
It will be nice to not have to do that anymore, eh!?
I take this failure as tentative support for my thesis that induction exists within science.
Whether it does or whether it does not; it can always be gotten rid ofthis is my argument! Disclosing the implications/assumptions of your argument is more honest than hiding them.
You have failed to use deductions and observations to generate predictions, create general laws etc.
See D-Newton above.
In real science as done by scientists not philosophers - our general conclusions can in principle be false even if all of our observations (premises) are true.
Of course. This is because some of the conclusion rests on either an inductive leap or a certain assumption. The fact of the matter is that it is easier to falsify something when you are aware of all the parts that go into it; stating the inductive leap in the form of an assumption gives us that added ease. It doesn't change anything about truths or falsities; it just makes the argument more open and easier to address.
You seem to think that science shouldn't make general statements from specifics and that doing this is 'sloppy'.
Not at all! I think it is perfectly fine for science to do this. What I argue for is the expression of the inductive leap in such a way that lets us examine it and attempt to falsify it. It is not important where we put it; my aim is honesty by means of full disclosure. We will either have an inductive argument with falsifiable implication B, or a deductive argument with falsifiable assumptive premise B. But B always exists; we cannot get rid of it. The problem with induction (not stating B) is that we risk fooling ourselves and others into thinking B doesn't exist. But indeed, whether stated or implied, it is there.
Induction is with us as long as we don't make shit up to suit our purposes.
Nonsense! Induction makes up as much shit as deduction. As I said above, your induction creates necessary implications, some of which are identical to the assumptive premises required. The difference is, I'll say again, just semantic. So, I cannot image why we are still arguing...
Jon

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 498 by Modulous, posted 11-21-2010 12:17 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 515 by Panda, posted 11-22-2010 12:44 PM Jon has replied
 Message 516 by Modulous, posted 11-22-2010 1:14 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 514 of 744 (592822)
11-22-2010 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 512 by Panda
11-22-2010 10:37 AM


Re: Nwr: "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves"
Maybe you need to sort out what you are trying to say.
Why? You seem to have understood it perfectly well. Your summaries are spot on:
A guess can be an accurate prediction.
An opinion can be an accurate prediction.
...
A guess can create an accurate prediction.
An opinion can create an accurate prediction.
Jon

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 512 by Panda, posted 11-22-2010 10:37 AM Panda has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 515 of 744 (592827)
11-22-2010 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 513 by Jon
11-22-2010 12:07 PM


Re: induction
This is just to point out something to Modulous:
Jon writes:
But you are, again, dealing with two separate issues. Deduction says nothing about the actual truth of anything.
Jon writes:
It is deductive not because the conclusion is true (its actual truth will hinge on the quality of the premises), but because it is true given the premises.
Jon writes:
Thus, it is not required that deduction make 'necessarily true' conclusions, only that it make conclusions that are necessarily true given the premisesthis is, afterall, its definition.
Jon writes:
The deductive conclusion is more fully supported by the stated premises, but neither conclusion is more likely to be true, since the inductive leap is as improbable as the third premise in the deductive argument.
This is Jon equivocating between logical truth and factual truth.
It would appear that at least half of Jon's reply consists of this equivocation.
Do you wonder if it is even worth trying to discuss anything with Jon?
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 513 by Jon, posted 11-22-2010 12:07 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 518 by Straggler, posted 11-22-2010 2:35 PM Panda has seen this message but not replied
 Message 519 by Jon, posted 11-22-2010 4:52 PM Panda has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 516 of 744 (592828)
11-22-2010 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 513 by Jon
11-22-2010 12:07 PM


secret inductions
You don't need lots of repetitions P1...Pn as you did unless you are trying to 'lend support' to P2,
That was actually the reason they were there; as something of a replacement for your P2. A minor difference, though.
So you agree it was inductive, not deductive?
This is built (deductively) on the premises of his observations and the assumption that all stuff behaved the same.
That assumption is the assumption that induction works. That is: he assumed, based on a small set of 'some' would apply to 'all'.
But you are, again, dealing with two separate issues. Deduction says nothing about the actual truth of anything.
It says if the premises are true, the conclusion is. The only way to make an inductive argument deductive in science, is to insert 'induction works' as a premise, as you have time and again demonstrated. It just masks the induction.
In fact, the degree of improbability of our second premise here will be equal to the degree of improbability of the inductive leap were we to remove this premise.
Indeed. But if we are arguing that the second premise is supported to some degree by a set of other premises (and not deductively necessitated by them), then you are still talking about an inductive leap. Sure you can make an inductive leap, and then construct a deductive argument but we're still taking the inductive leap part of science, not the deductive arguments you can make after the leap. You can't avoid the inductive leap.
See D-Newton above.
D-Newton either made up the claim that "that all stuff behaved the same" or he inductively concluded it. It's either not scientific, or it is induction in science.
The fact of the matter is that it is easier to falsify something when you are aware of all the parts that go into it; stating the inductive leap in the form of an assumption gives us that added ease. It doesn't change anything about truths or falsities; it just makes the argument more open and easier to address.
A scientific inductive argument spells out why the evidence supports the induction, mathematically calculates the degree of support the evidence gives and proposes further tests to increase the degree of support that exists for the claim.
Not at all! I think it is perfectly fine for science to do this. What I argue for is the expression of the inductive leap in such a way that lets us examine it and attempt to falsify it.
And that happens, which is why we're able to falsify inductions in science. Indeed - science is so anal about doing this that it says that if you can't do it - it isn't science.
So, I cannot image why we are still arguing
So if you explicitly agree that science uses induction and I will agree that you can insert inductively based premises to create a deductive argument and I think we're done.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 513 by Jon, posted 11-22-2010 12:07 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 534 by Jon, posted 11-22-2010 6:09 PM Modulous has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 517 of 744 (592835)
11-22-2010 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 511 by Jon
11-22-2010 9:46 AM


Re: Nwr: "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves"
I am holding my pen in the air. I am going to let go. What is the scientific conclusion regarding the actual bahaviour of my pen that will be observed when I let it go?
Jon writes:
A prediction is not accurate at the time it is made; it is accurate at the time it is fulfilled. There is, thus, no reason why 'guesses' and 'opinions' cannot be accurate predictions.
It is possible that even blind random chance will sometimes hit upon the correct answer. But I would suggest that your chances of accurately guessing when the next eclipse will occur are not good.
Scientific conclusions are not baseless guesses or opinions which are derived from nothing as you have asserted throughout this thread. Scientific conclusions are demonstrably superior in terms of reliability to guesses and opinions. This Jon is why we practise science rather than just sit on the beach pontificating as to the nature of reality and plucking axioms out of our arses so that we can derive whatever conclusions take our fancy.
Jon writes:
But, I think your wording implies some sort of complete certainty
Then you are a idiot. Have you missed my (and everyone else’s) repeated us of the word tentative?
Jon writes:
So, to help clear things up: what certainty do you place in the conclusion that 'nature will behave as observed to behave thus far'?
Inductively I tentatively conclude that nature will continue to operate as it has been observed to operate thus far. Science would be simply unable to function without this inductively derived conclusion.
Jon writes:
I think you are getting this confused, Straggler.
Oh the irony

This message is a reply to:
 Message 511 by Jon, posted 11-22-2010 9:46 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 521 by Jon, posted 11-22-2010 5:19 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 518 of 744 (592855)
11-22-2010 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 515 by Panda
11-22-2010 12:44 PM


Re: induction
Panda writes:
Do you wonder if it is even worth trying to discuss anything with Jon?
Constantly.
But I have to wile away the long winter evenings somehow.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 515 by Panda, posted 11-22-2010 12:44 PM Panda has seen this message but not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 519 of 744 (592870)
11-22-2010 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 515 by Panda
11-22-2010 12:44 PM


Re: induction
This is Jon equivocating between logical truth and factual truth.
It would appear that at least half of Jon's reply consists of this equivocation.
Good thing all the quotes you provided were of me pointing out differences between actually true conclusions and true given the premises conclusions.
So, where is your evidence of this supposed equivocation?
Jon

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 515 by Panda, posted 11-22-2010 12:44 PM Panda has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


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

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 521 of 744 (592873)
11-22-2010 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 517 by Straggler
11-22-2010 1:38 PM


Re: Nwr: "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves"
Have you missed my (and everyone else’s) repeated us of the word tentative?
I guess I didn't see it in that post, Straggler. Maybe you can point it out?
I am holding my pen in the air. I am going to let go. What is the scientific conclusion regarding the actual bahaviour of my pen that will be observed when I let it go?
More of this probability of gravity crap? How dull.
Scientific conclusions are not baseless guesses or opinions which are derived from nothing as you have asserted throughout this thread.
Good thing I never argued this!
Scientific conclusions are demonstrably superior in terms of reliability to guesses and opinions.
The very nature of Science requires this. So what?
This Jon is why we practise science rather than just sit on the beach pontificating as to the nature of reality and plucking axioms out of our arses so that we can derive whatever conclusions take our fancy.
Good thing I never argued for that!
Inductively I tentatively conclude that nature will continue to operate as it has been observed to operate thus far.
Good for you.
Science would be simply unable to function without this inductively derived conclusion.
So? That's not the topic of the debate between you and me. Did you forget what it was already?
Jon
BTW: Still awaiting your flashy inductive argument that cannot be made deductive.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 517 by Straggler, posted 11-22-2010 1:38 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 530 by Straggler, posted 11-22-2010 5:59 PM Jon has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 522 of 744 (592874)
11-22-2010 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 509 by Straggler
11-21-2010 7:58 PM


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 523 by Straggler, posted 11-22-2010 5:30 PM nwr has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 523 of 744 (592875)
11-22-2010 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 522 by nwr
11-22-2010 5:20 PM


Re: Nwr: "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves"
Back to your vagueties again I see.
So have you decided yet whether or not science is able to reliably and accurately make conclusions about the future behaviour of natural phenomenon?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 522 by nwr, posted 11-22-2010 5:20 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 526 by nwr, posted 11-22-2010 5:37 PM Straggler has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 524 of 744 (592876)
11-22-2010 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 510 by Stephen Push
11-21-2010 9:20 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 510 by Stephen Push, posted 11-21-2010 9:20 PM Stephen Push has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 525 by Straggler, posted 11-22-2010 5:36 PM nwr has replied
 Message 548 by Stephen Push, posted 11-23-2010 6:15 PM nwr has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 525 of 744 (592878)
11-22-2010 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 524 by nwr
11-22-2010 5:31 PM


Re: Nwr: "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves"
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.
It is in thsi respect almost the complete oppoiste of the "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves" view that you have espoused.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 524 by nwr, posted 11-22-2010 5:31 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 528 by nwr, posted 11-22-2010 5:46 PM Straggler has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024