|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Induction and Science | |||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Panda writes:
Sigh!You mean that the reply I gave to the request: nwr writes: 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. Are we still on that bullshit. The reply you gave to that "by definition" claim did not support the claim. Moreover, the claim is obviously false, as shown in the last line of Message 502.
Giving several links is worthless. Just give one link with a definition that actually supports your claim (if there is one). The definitions I saw in your links did not support your claim. The Pythagorus theorem is still a general principle that is derived by deductive reasoning.
Panda writes:
Quite so. But the definition is fine, even if the explanation is defective.In the link you provided, you disagreed with the explanation of the definition. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Stephen Push writes:
People make predictions using a Ouja board. You can, of course, make better predictions with science, but that does not require induction.Do you believe that some method other than inductive reasoning provides a basis for predicting unobserved phenomena? Here is the scoreboard thus far, as best I can tell: Actual evidence of induction being used by science: zero.Valid arguments supporting induction: zero. Invalid arguments supporting induction: many - I didn't try counting them. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Straggler writes:
What you presumably mean, is that I have never answered it to your satisfaction. However, I have answered it.You have changed the question and skirted around it continuously. But you have never answered it. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Straggler writes:
Message 480I 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. Edited by nwr, : correct wrong quote Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
nwr writes: You can, of course, make better predictions with science, but that does not require induction. Straggler writes:
"Better" means a higher probability of being near correct.What do you mean by "better" and how do you explain the ability of science to make "better" predictions? Science does better because it use far more information, more in quantity in quality, when making its predictions.
Straggler writes:
You switch from "prediction" to "conclusion".
Is science able to make reliable and accurate (albeit tentative) conclusions about the future behaviour of natural phenomena? nwr writes: Actual evidence of induction being used by science: zero. Straggler writes:
You assert that is evidence of induction. ID proponents also make lots of assertions about evidence for ID.Ahem - Universal principles upon which the behaviour of my soon to be dropped pen can be scientifically derived. So, sure, you are right up there on a par with the ID creationists in your use of evidence. That is to say, you have not provided any.
Straggler writes:
"Valid" refers to an actual logic derivation that begins with clearly stated premises, and follows the accepted rules of logical deduction.Define "valid" and "invalid". Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Straggler writes:
Oops!Where? Link to the answer to the question asked. I accidentally quoted the wrong text. My reply was intended to respond to a different part of your message. (I have since edited that earlier post). Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Oops again. My reply to Message 569 was intended to be a reply to Message 570.
Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Straggler writes:
No. Or, as people sometimes express it, shit happens.Can science reliably and accurately make conclusions about things which have not yet occurred based on the principles derived from what has gone before? Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Panda writes:
I don't think I have suggested that. Rather, I have said that what you claimed to be true by definition, isn't.
You claim that the definitions conflict? Panda writes:
Are you denying that the Pythagorus result holds for ordinary physical triangles?Pythagorus' theorem is a mathematical proof - it is called a theorem for a reason. But in science you have theories not theorems. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Stephen Push writes:
I'm not sure what's your point here. Any prediction is about the unknown.Can you describe any method of making predictions that performs better than chance and does not require inference from the known to the unknown? Induction is supposedly the deriving of a general statement from specific statements. A prediction is not a general statement. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Straggler writes: Can science reliably and accurately make conclusions about things which have not yet occurred based on the principles derived from what has gone before? nwr writes: No. Straggler writes:
The "conclusion" sometimes turns out to be wrong, showing that the "accurately" requirement is not met.
Yet science does do this. Straggler writes:
It is clearly not indisputable. It has been disputed.Your non-inductive description of science spectacularly fails to deal with the indisputable fact that science as practised by real scientists makes inductive conclusions about the way nature will behave in specific as yet unobserved circumstances. Back in Message 509 you implied that I am anti-Popper, which I am not. You also implied that I am postmodern, which I am not. You seem to be jumping to conclusions not based on evidence. Here's a quote from the Stanford Encyclopedia entry on Popper quote:It seems that I am in agreement with a lot of what Popper says. If there is good evidence that induction is actually used by science, then there should be a peer reviewed scholarly article that thoroughly refutes Popper. Perhaps you can provide a citation. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Modulous writes:
Something peer reviewed that clearly uses induction.What would be evidence of induction in science? I made a suggestion in Message 600 on what you might look for. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Straggler writes:
I am providing a counter example to an absurd claim made by Panda.What is your point? Do pay attention. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Straggler writes:
Bullshit.You cannot make scientific predictions (or conclusions pertaining to future events) without first inductively concluding that nature will continue to operate as it has been observed to behave thus far. However, I do suggest you try to construct a clear valid logical argument supporting your bare assertion. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024