|
Author
|
Topic: Induction and Science
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
Re: renamed implications
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." You need to read in full the discussion between Modulous and myself. You will see that what you consider to be 'derived from nothing' premises are, nevertheless, present in even your best 'inductive' argument. Straggler also said: "Your little logic exercise is itself derived from inductive reasoning." Message 243 Why not just supply me with the inductive argument, then, if you believe it cannot be made deductive? You've been asked so many times, why continue dancing around the matter? Jon Edited by Jon, : No reason given. Edited by Jon, : Finished edit...
Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 535 by Straggler, posted 11-22-2010 6:32 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
Reapproaching Things
Straggler; I believe you are reading too much into my statements and are attempting to find disagreements where none need exist. Let's try to deal with things in a more orderly and relevant fashion: Firstly, your attempt to refute my claim regarding induction through the use of Bill's epistemology is irrelevant in this thread. This thread is about Science; Bill's epistemology has absolutely no place here. Besides, if Bill's epistemology is logical, it will regard induction in the same way induction is regarded in Logic; if it is not logical, then it is illogical and not worth our time. Secondly, the derivation, or source, of an axiom, premise, or whatever you wish to call it is also irrelevantagain, for the simple reason that this is a science thread. As far as Science is concerned, the origin of our claims is not important: the importance is the degree to which such claims may be supported and/or falsified. In fact, I would argue that on these grounds the entire topic matter of this thread is somewhat unimportant; whether a conclusion in Science is inductively or deductively derived will have no bearing on how well said conclusion will conform to reality. Finally, the desire to avoid what you feel are 'derived from nothing' axioms is misplaced. Whether our argument takes an inductive or deductive form, these parts will be always present, and will bear down always on our conclusion. The degree to which they weigh down our conclusion with improbability will be related to the degree to which we may find support for these things either in the fundamental frameworks of the scientific method itself or in the empirical world. An attempt to avoid this is just an attempt to avoid a necessary consequence of the nature of reality and logical thought. 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. I look forward to hearing what you have to say. Jon
Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 545 by Straggler, posted 11-23-2010 7:40 AM | | Straggler has replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
Re: Nwr: "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves"
Do you believe that some method other than inductive reasoning provides a basis for predicting unobserved phenomena? If so, what method? One may pull something from one's ass. This has worked particularly well for me in the past. Yes, you end up with a lot of shit; but you do get a gem every once and a while. Jon
Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 554 by Stephen Push, posted 11-24-2010 6:53 AM | | Stephen Push has seen this message but not replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
Re: Reapproaching Things
Science doesn't start from "axioms" that are "derived from nothing". Do you dispute this? It is irrelevant.
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? I think you've completely missed the point about what I was saying. The deductive aspects are always there, even if relabeled.
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. Nor is it how any of the example axioms you have provided (e.g. regarding unobserved phenomena) were arrived at either. Again, this isn't relevant. You have yet to show a difference between axioms derived from nothing and premises derived from something that is relevant to Science. Science may use induction, but does it really matter? At the end of the day, all must still be tested. Jon
Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 559 by Straggler, posted 11-24-2010 2:46 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
Re: Nwr: "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves"
The origin is irrelevant, Straggler. No matter from where we get our axioms, premises, or whatever you'd like to call them, they must still be tested to the same rigor. This is, afterall, a Science thread. Jon Edited by Jon, : you ↔ we
Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 561 by Straggler, posted 11-24-2010 3:04 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
Huh?
Well the first are functionally equivalent to blind random guesses and the second are derived from expereience and are evidentially superior. Which part of that are you disputing? Huh? This is Science, Straggler. Are they not both subject to the same tests of falsification?
So now you are equivocating on your initial claim that "There is, of course, no such thing as 'induction'. All conclusions are arrived at deductively" Huh? This doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.
Indeed. But how do we choose what to test? Huh? We don't choose: everything must be tested before gaining acceptance.
Jon says "Let there be the Higgs Boson" therefore we will spend billions on researching Jon's "derived from nothing" axiom. Huh? I'm sorry, but I don't recall ever advocating for such stupid behavior. Jon Edited by Jon, : clarification...
Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 563 by Straggler, posted 11-24-2010 3:42 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 586 of 744 (593233)
11-25-2010 11:36 AM
|
Reply to: Message 582 by Straggler
11-25-2010 6:11 AM
|
|
Re: Perpetual Motions
LOL. Is there anything in there worth responding to? Jon
Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 582 by Straggler, posted 11-25-2010 6:11 AM | | Straggler has not replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 587 of 744 (593235)
11-25-2010 11:46 AM
|
Reply to: Message 581 by Straggler
11-25-2010 5:55 AM
|
|
Still Completely Missing the Point
Then why the fuck have you spent an entire thread falsely asserting that the origins of all scientific theories are "axioms" which are "derived from nothing"? Not sure if I ever made that assertion.
Let's pretend that your idiotic method of starting scientific investigation is a reality Not sure if I ever made a claim on how I believe scientific investigations get started.
Thus inductive reasoning is necessarily still a part of science and Nwr's little pet project remains refuted. Not sure. But last I checked I wasn't nwr. Jon
Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 581 by Straggler, posted 11-25-2010 5:55 AM | | Straggler has replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
The Point is Still Missed
How is an axiom "derived from nothing" of the sort you have been advocating all thread different to a blind random guess? Perhaps when you can show why it matters, then the issue can be addressed.
Jon writes: All conclusions are arrived at deductively Jon writes: Axioms are, by definition, derived from nothing. So (according to you) all conclusions are the result of deductions from what are effectively blind random guesses. Sorry, but that doesn't follow from the quotes pasted.
Then what does your axiomatic nonsense have to do with the topic at hand? Plenty.
So you inductively conclude that you are still not? I think you should check again. If you can fit it in around your busy schedule as you eternally investigate every potential perpetual motion machine conceivable. How does this address anything? Jon
Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 588 by Straggler, posted 11-25-2010 1:46 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
The Point's been Missing so Long; It'll Never be Found
How is an axiom "derived from nothing" of the sort you have been advocating all thread different to a blind random guess? Does it matter?
If your deduced conclusions are derived from "axioms" which are functionally equivalent to blind random guesses then why would your conclusions (no matter how logically valid) be superior to blind random guesses? Have I ever made such a claim? Jon
Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 590 by Straggler, posted 11-25-2010 2:33 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
Nope... That's not the Point Either
The fact that you are incapable of recognising the logical consequences of your own position is neither here nor there. Huh?
I put it to you that the conclusions deduced from "axioms" which are "derived from nothing" are functionally equivalent to blind random guesses. How could it be otherwise? Whether it is or isn't, why does it matter?
If conclusions are no more reliable or accurate than blind random guesses then yes it matters. Isn't it all still tested? We don't judge on reliability until things are tested. So, why does it matter?
Fortunately most of us have recognised the need for better methods. Oh? And how do they differ from mine? Jon
Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 592 by Straggler, posted 11-25-2010 6:22 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 622 of 744 (593303)
11-25-2010 9:05 PM
|
Reply to: Message 620 by Modulous
11-25-2010 8:32 PM
|
|
Re: Universal Principles
But is it not a particular theorem that was derived from more general principles of geometry? If it is derived from particular examples, then it already has appealed to these particular examples to gain acceptance. If it is derived from nothing (e.g., made up from a dream), then it will have to appeal to particular examples to gain acceptance. Either way, it is certain that we cannot get around the appeal to particular examples if we are to do Science. Science operates off of information from the empirical world, and without the luxury of examining everything, we are stuck with limited amounts of this information. Jon
Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 620 by Modulous, posted 11-25-2010 8:32 PM | | Modulous has replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 629 of 744 (593352)
11-26-2010 12:26 PM
|
Reply to: Message 627 by Straggler
11-26-2010 11:22 AM
|
|
Re: Nope... That's not the Point Either
So if a deductively derived conclusion fails a falsification test and is thus falsified you assume that it will fail that same test everytime it is taken? So actually through falsification you are once again invoking inductive reasoning. Which once again rather poo poos you silly assertion that "There is, of course, no such thing as 'induction'. All conclusions are arrived at deductively". I'm really confused, Straggler. It appears that you have no idea what my argument is. Again, I think you are looking for disagreement where there needn't be any.
As I have told you previoulsy the best that can be said of your method is that it is the most desperately inefficient method of determining the starting point of scientific investigation. I don't think I have ever made a statement about which of any 'methods' are more or less efficient. Jon
Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 627 by Straggler, posted 11-26-2010 11:22 AM | | Straggler has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2