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 541 of 744 (592932)
11-22-2010 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 539 by Straggler
11-22-2010 7:13 PM


Re: renamed implications
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 539 by Straggler, posted 11-22-2010 7:13 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 543 by Straggler, posted 11-23-2010 6:27 AM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 542 of 744 (592949)
11-22-2010 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 540 by Modulous
11-22-2010 9:00 PM


Re: induction and SCIENCE
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 540 by Modulous, posted 11-22-2010 9:00 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 545 by Straggler, posted 11-23-2010 7:40 AM Jon has replied

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


Message 543 of 744 (592953)
11-23-2010 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 541 by Jon
11-22-2010 9:00 PM


Re: renamed implications
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 541 by Jon, posted 11-22-2010 9:00 PM Jon has not replied

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


Message 544 of 744 (592954)
11-23-2010 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 504 by nwr
11-21-2010 6:59 PM


Re: Nwr: "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves"
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 504 by nwr, posted 11-21-2010 6:59 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 551 by nwr, posted 11-23-2010 6:38 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 545 of 744 (592958)
11-23-2010 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 542 by Jon
11-22-2010 11:38 PM


Re: induction and SCIENCE
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 542 by Jon, posted 11-22-2010 11:38 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 557 by Jon, posted 11-24-2010 2:05 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 546 of 744 (592999)
11-23-2010 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Jon
11-09-2010 10:08 PM


The Myth of Induction - Jon: All conclusions are arrived at deductively
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Jon, posted 11-09-2010 10:08 PM Jon has not replied

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


Message 547 of 744 (593018)
11-23-2010 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 531 by Straggler
11-22-2010 6:03 PM


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

  
Stephen Push
Member (Idle past 4860 days)
Posts: 140
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 548 of 744 (593019)
11-23-2010 6:15 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"
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.

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 552 by nwr, posted 11-23-2010 6:53 PM Stephen Push has replied

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


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


Message 550 of 744 (593021)
11-23-2010 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 532 by Straggler
11-22-2010 6:05 PM


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 560 by Straggler, posted 11-24-2010 2:59 PM nwr has replied

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


Message 551 of 744 (593022)
11-23-2010 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 544 by Straggler
11-23-2010 6:41 AM


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 556 by Straggler, posted 11-24-2010 12:31 PM nwr has replied

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


Message 552 of 744 (593023)
11-23-2010 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 548 by Stephen Push
11-23-2010 6:15 PM


Re: Nwr: "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves"
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 implicit in the definition.
It is not implicit in the part that I quoted.
I'll readily grant that I have studied the literature on instrumentalism.
Stephen Push writes:
Thus I believe you are not even close to being an instrumentalist.
You could be right.
Stephen Push writes:
Like an instrumentalist, you deny that science can describe objective reality.
But I do not deny that. I deny only that a scientific theory is a description.
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.
Edited by nwr, : misattribution

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 548 by Stephen Push, posted 11-23-2010 6:15 PM Stephen Push has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 554 by Stephen Push, posted 11-24-2010 6:53 AM nwr has replied

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


Message 553 of 744 (593024)
11-23-2010 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 549 by nwr
11-23-2010 6:32 PM


Re: Universal Principles
nwr 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.
That directly contradicts what was implied by your question "What new information is deduced?" (Message 417)
Oh really?
You mean that the reply I gave to the request:
nwr writes:
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.
does not answer the question you inferred from a different sentence?
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:
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.
In the link you provided, you disagreed with the explanation of the definition.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 549 by nwr, posted 11-23-2010 6:32 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 564 by nwr, posted 11-24-2010 5:51 PM Panda has replied

  
Stephen Push
Member (Idle past 4860 days)
Posts: 140
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 554 of 744 (593082)
11-24-2010 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 552 by nwr
11-23-2010 6:53 PM


Re: Nwr: "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves"
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 552 by nwr, posted 11-23-2010 6:53 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 558 by Jon, posted 11-24-2010 2:14 PM Stephen Push has seen this message but not replied
 Message 565 by nwr, posted 11-24-2010 5:58 PM Stephen Push has replied

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


Message 555 of 744 (593119)
11-24-2010 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 547 by nwr
11-23-2010 6:01 PM


Re: Nwr: "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves"
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 547 by nwr, posted 11-23-2010 6:01 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024