|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Induction and Science | |||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Jon writes: Maybe you can point it out? Do a search for the word "tentative" and specify my name and you will see this term used in numerous threads including all of the ones we have recently partaken in.
Jon writes: Straggler writes: 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. Can't answer the question without contradicting yourself huh? That is why I keep asking it.
Jon writes: Straggler writes: 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! Oh so you have been persuaded by my argument that rather than premises plucked from nowhere you are actually deriving the starting points of your deductions from inductive conclusions based on experience. Well done Jon there is hope for you yet.
Jon writes: Straggler writes: Scientific conclusions are demonstrably superior in terms of reliability to guesses and opinions. The very nature of Science requires this. So what? Why do you think this is the case? See Message 461 Jon writes: BTW: Still awaiting your flashy inductive argument that cannot be made deductive. So you continue to assert that your "axiom" that nature will continue to operate when unobserved as it does when observed is "derived from nothing" - Functionally equivalent to a blind random guess rather than derived inductively from the totality of your experience? It is just astonishing coincidence that your experience and everyone elses experience matches this "derived from nothing" axiom of yours perfectly?
Jon writes: Straggler writes: The conclusion that the world will always continue to operate when unobserved as it does when observed is inductively derived. False. Assumptions (axioms) are by definition derived from nothing. Jon writes: Axioms are, by definition, derived from nothing. Jon writes: Once again, it is an axiom; it is derived from nothing. Why is this so hard to understand? Just a blind stab in the dark then?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Nwr writes: 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. Do you consider any scientific conclusions to be ones of certainty? Is science is able to make reliable and accurate (albeit tentative) conclusions about the future behaviour of natural phenomenon? Stop evading the question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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?
Do you see why such response are a complete waste of fucking time? They are just evasive and ambiguous.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Jon writes: My original claim, though, was that all induction can be closedturned into deductionby adding certain premises. This was the essence of the ongoing debate between Straggler and myself. No Jon - Let me remind you of what I have said: Straggler said: "That's the problem with axiomatic deduction of the silly sort you are advocating. You can pick your axioms and deduce whatever you want to." Message 302 Also: Message 260 Straggler writes: The conclusion that unobserved phenomenon will behave in the same way as observed phenomenon is itself inductively derived from experience. Between periods of observation the world appears to have continued to operate as it did whilst being oberved. Thus we inductively conclude that it did so and will continue to do so. What are the missing premises here? Jon writes: There aren't any. OK.
Jon writes: To falsify it, you need only provide one example of an argument that is inductive that cannot be made deductive by adding missing premises. Well the fact that you have yet to cite these missing premises suggests that you have failed your own challenge on your own terms. But more to the point is the fact that even if you pluck some "derived from nothing" premises out of your arse the idea that you have randomly hit upon the same conclusion that the rest of us have inductively is just nonsense. Jon - How is a premise "derived from nothing" different to a blind random guess? You have never answered this question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Jon writes: I take it you never mentioned 'tentativity' in that message, as I suspected. I never mentioned "certainty" either yet you erroneously started ranting on about that. Am I supposed to second guess your ever more bewildered misunderstandings?
Jon on falling pens writes: The question's been answered a thousand times, Straggler. Then you shouldn't have any trouble finding the answer should you?
Jon writes: Straggler writes: Oh so you have been persuaded by my argument that rather than premises plucked from nowhere you are actually deriving the starting points of your deductions from inductive conclusions based on experience. Persuaded from what? I never held the position you accuse me of having held. So you agree that the starting point of your little logic exercise is not "derived from nothing" as repeatedly asserted by you but instead derived inductively from experience. Finally.
Jon writes: And where is your inductive argument that cannot be made deductive? You can falsely make anything deductive by ramming in whatever stupid premises are required to result in the conclusion you want to reach as I have repeatedly said. But this is not in practise how we come to conclusions - As it seems I have successfully argued. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Jon - How is a "derived from nothing" premise different to a blind random guess?
Mod writes: 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. Jon writes: You need to read in full the discussion between Modulous and myself. I have. And it concludes with exactly what I have been saying to you all along. The starting point of your deductive logic exercise is not a "derived from nothing" axiom as you keep relentlessly asserting but instread inductively derived from expereince.
Jon writes: You will see that what you consider to be 'derived from nothing' premises are, nevertheless, present in even your best 'inductive' argument. Can you give me an example of one of these premises that is "derived from nothing" rather than experience?
Jon writes: Why not just supply me with the inductive argument, then, if you believe it cannot be made deductive? You can falsely make anything deductive with the placement of arbitrary premises you bewildered dimwit. How many more times need I say this? That was the whole point of the Bill example.
Jon writes: You've been asked so many times, why continue dancing around the matter? I have answered it so many times why keep asking. Let's take this step by step shall we? Is your "derived from nothing axiom" that unobserved phenomenon will always behave in the same way as observed phenomenon consistent with your experience of the world? When you wake up does the world seem to have carried on as was without you or not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 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 95 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 95 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 95 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
No you haven't. You have changed the question and skirted around it continuously. But you have never answered it.
Either provide the answer or admit that you cannot.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Jon writes: There is, of course, no such thing as 'induction'. All conclusions are arrived at deductively. Message 178 Do you still stand by this claim? 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.
Jon writes: Now, having said all that, if you still have something to say that is in someway contrary to my argument, then you are welcomed to lay out your objections in a reasoned straight-forward manner such that they may be understood and addressed. Science doesn't start from "axioms" that are "derived from nothing". Do you dispute this? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Nwr writes: 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. I have honestly never seen you give a detailed position on anything. I don't even think you are capable of it. But if you provide a link to the specific post in which you give this once-in-a-lifetime rarity I will of course be delighted to comment. The novelty factor alone will make this worthwhile. And while you are at it perhaps you could spell out (even if in a quote from a previous post) your answer to the question that you seem unable to give a straight answer to:
Is science able to make reliable and accurate (albeit tentative) conclusions about the future behaviour of natural phenomena? 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