|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Induction and Science | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
How is an axiom "derived from nothing" of the sort you have been advocating all thread different to a blind random guess?
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.
Jon writes: Not sure if I ever made a claim on how I believe scientific investigations get started. Then what does your axiomatic nonsense have to do with the topic at hand? Anyway I thought your assertions applied to "All conclusions"?
Jon writes: Not sure. But last I checked I wasn't nwr. 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. It must be fun being you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
How is an axiom "derived from nothing" of the sort you have been advocating all thread different to a blind random guess?
Jon writes: Perhaps when you can show why it matters, then the issue can be addressed. 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?
Jon writes: How does this address anything? I could say that to your entire last post. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Jon writes: Straggler writes: 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? The fact that you are incapable of recognising the logical consequences of your own position is neither here nor there. 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?
Jon writes: Does it matter? If conclusions are no more reliable or accurate than blind random guesses then yes it matters. Fortunately most of us have recognised the need for better methods.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Just seen this:
bluegenes writes: Premise: In the given particular example of inductive reasoning, the conclusion arrived at is absurd. Conclusion: Generally, inductive reasoning is absurd. Method used above: Inductive reasoning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
If I put a piece of potassium in a glass of water what does science tell us will happen?
Nwr writes: 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? No. Yet science does do this. 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. Until you can describe science in a way that does not necessitate such conclusions as being "guesses" or "opinions" you remain entirely refuted on this very crucial point regarding the inductive nature of science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Pythagoras theorem is a general theorem that appies to ALL right angle triangles. The proof of Pythagoras theorem proves that Pythagoras theorem applies to ALL right angle triangles.
Nwr writes: Are you denying that the Pythagorus result holds for ordinary physical triangles? "Physical triangles" - Will have imperfect right angles. So yes Pythagoras theorem will apply but imperfectly. It holds for ALL right angle triangles. That is what Pythagoras theorem states. That is what has been deductively proven. What is your point? That a general mathematical conjecture has been proved to apply in all cases? What has this got to do with induction and science?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Nwr writes: A prediction is not a general statement. 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. Can science tell us what effect dehydration would have on your body? Yes it can. But not without inductive reasoning being innately required.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024