|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Induction and Science | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Do you no longer believe the axiom about observed/unobserved things to be a case of induction that cannot be turned into deduction?
I have answered it so many times why keep asking. Yet; in all my searching, I see it nowhere. Not a single instance of an argument laid out with clear premises and a clear conclusion. Modulous, nwr, myself, and others have been doing this throughout the thread. You, however, seem unwilling to present your argument in this fashion. Why? Jon Check out Apollo's Temple! Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
The debate between you and I was not supposed to go on for so long. I had tried to make it clear from the beginning that I did not think we had any serious, relevant disagreement. My apologies if this was not well-enough communicated.
In hopes of making this worth your while, though, I will go back and review your posts here to see if I've anything to say about your position on the topic of ' Induction and Science'. It might take a while, though... 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 - How is a "derived from nothing" premise different to a blind random guess?
When are you going to answer this question? Your entire position in this thread (and indeed various others) rests on the use of axioms that you describe as "derived from nothing". If these are functionally equivalent to blind random guesses then you cannot just dismiss this with "who cares". At the very least you have invented the most foolishly inefficient method of deriving knowledge possible.
Jon writes: Do you no longer believe the axiom about observed/unobserved things to be a case of induction that cannot be turned into deduction Are you stupid? How many times need I say that the entire reason your "derived from nothing" axiom argument is so pointlessly imbecilic is exactly because you can deduce absolutely anything that takes your fancy by plucking arbitrary axioms from your arse (just as Bill could - remember him? Message 211).
But nobody actually came to the conclusion under discussion through "derived from nothing" axioms. And scientific conclusions are certainly not made in this manner. You have even conceded that your "derived from nothing" axiomatic starting point of your little deductive exercise is in fact derived from experience. Have you ever woken up to observe the world in a state that is inconsistent with it functioning as observed while you were not observing it? Have you (for example) ever awoken to find that the world appeared to have been on pause during your period of non-observance? No. From this you have inductively concluded that you never will. The question is why do you want to take this inductive conclusion and re-brand it as a "derived from nothing" axiom when it blatantly is no such thing?
Jon writes: You, however, seem unwilling to present your argument in this fashion. Why? Every shred of experience I have indicates that the world continues to function as is whether I am actively observing it or not. To make the generalised conclusion that this will always be the case based on this limited information is indisputably an inductive conclusion. Which part of this are you not understanding? How could it possibly be made clearer to you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Is science is able to make reliable and accurate (albeit tentative) conclusions about the future behaviour of natural phenomena?
This would seem to be a very simple question. Why can you not give a straight answer to it?
Nwr writes: You are completely missing the point. Until you can give a description of science that deals with the fact that science does make conclusions about the future behaviour of natural phenomena without these conclusions necessarily being inductively derived from past behaviour - You have no point and your non-inductive science position has been refuted. Edited by Straggler, : Phenomena not phenomenon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Jon if you are in so much agreement with Modulous can you tell me what I have said that is significantly different to that which you are agreeing with?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Jon writes: All conclusions are arrived at deductively. You started this entire conversation with the assertion that All conclusions are arrived at deductively. You then went on to (repeatedly) assert that the starting point for these deductions are axioms which are (I quote) derived from nothing. To be derived from nothing is functionally equivalent to being derived from blind random guesses. This is not how scientific conclusions are derived. Nor is it how any of the example axioms you have provided (e.g. regarding unobserved phenomena) were arrived at either. This has been demonstrated to you both by myself and (more successfully) Modulous.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Straggler writes:
Sure. Conclusions about the logical structure of a theory can be certain. It's the conclusion about reality that are uncertain.Do you consider any scientific conclusions to be ones of certainty? Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen Push Member (Idle past 4889 days) Posts: 140 From: Virginia, USA Joined: |
nwr writes: I only said that my position is similar to instrumentalism, and I quoted the part that fitted. I see nothing about unobservables there. It is implicit in the definition. The reason that instrumentalists believe that science does not describe objective reality is because they believe we cannot make valid inferences about unobservables. Although there are several versions of instrumentalism, I'm not aware of any that holds, as you do, that science does not use induction. As your own definition states, instrumentalism holds that science can explain and predict. It seems to me that extrapolation from actual abservations to as-yet-unobserved phenomena (i.e., induction) is essential for prediction. Thus I believe you are not even close to being an instrumentalist. Like an instrumentalist, you deny that science can describe objective reality. But unlike an instrumentalist, you also deny science the use of the only reasoning technique that enables prediction. By your standard, the only thing that science can do is explain the results of actual observations. But without the ability to test predictions, your version of science has no more epistemic authority than, say, history, which studies unrepeatable phenomena. Edited by Stephen Push, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
nwr writes: That sure seems to contradict what you have been claiming. Panda writes:
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.I see no contradiction - it agrees with what I said. That directly contradicts what was implied by your question "What new information is deduced?" (Message 417)
Panda writes:
WTF?So, no links to any sites that agree with your definition? 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Straggler writes:
I gave a more detailed position in an earlier post. I don't recall that you have commented on it.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? Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Straggler writes:
I answered that some time ago. It is pointless to keep repeating the same question.Is science is able to make reliable and accurate (albeit tentative) conclusions about the future behaviour of natural phenomena? Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
nwr writes: I only said that my position is similar to instrumentalism, and I quoted the part that fitted. I see nothing about unobservables there. Stephen Push writes:
It is not implicit in the part that I quoted.It is implicit in the definition. I'll readily grant that I have studied the literature on instrumentalism.
Stephen Push writes:
You could be right.
Thus I believe you are not even close to being an instrumentalist. Stephen Push writes:
But I do not deny that. I deny only that a scientific theory is a description.
Like an instrumentalist, you deny that science can describe objective reality. Stephen Push writes:
That is just nonsense that you are making up.But unlike an instrumentalist, you also deny science the use of the only reasoning technique that enables prediction. Edited by nwr, : misattribution Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
nwr writes:
Oh really? 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) You mean that the reply I gave to the request: nwr writes: does not answer the question you inferred from a different sentence? Panda writes:
Provide a precise reference to the "definition" that you claim to be using. By definition: you cannot make general/universal rules/laws using deductive reasoning.If you want an answer to a question then you need to type that question in a post and not just expect me to guess what you want to know. You asked where my definition came from.I gave several links. The definition you chose from my links concurs with the definition I posted. If you think it contradicts my definition then please explain why. nwr writes:
In the link you provided, you disagreed with the explanation of the 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.That means that either the explanation is wrong or you don't understand the definition. I have no reason to think that the explanation is wrong. Why not post a link to a site that you agree with completely, instead?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen Push Member (Idle past 4889 days) Posts: 140 From: Virginia, USA Joined: |
nwr writes: Stephen Push writes: But unlike an instrumentalist, you also deny science the use of the only reasoning technique that enables prediction. That is just nonsense that you are making up. What do you claim is false about my statement? Do you believe that some method other than inductive reasoning provides a basis for predicting unobserved phenomena? If so, what method?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Nwr writes: It's the conclusion about reality that are uncertain. And it is those that I am asking you about. Is science able to make reliable and accurate (albeit tentative) conclusions about the future behaviour of natural phenomenon? Stop evading the question. And if you are going to falsely claim to have already answered the above question please provide the answer previously given along with the message link to where you previously answered it. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024