|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Induction and Science | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Nwr writes: Should I take that as an admission that you are unable to provide such an argument? No. You should take it as a challenge to show how the followng is not logically or evidentially valid: "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." Unless based on the past behaviour of nature what do you suggest we base such predictions on? Jon's plucked from arse "axioms"? Inductive reasoning works Nwr. It is unavoidable. Call it illogical if you want. But without it you remain wedded to a form of "science" that is incapable of even telling us what my soon to be dropped pen will do when released. A form of science that exists nowhere but in your head.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen Push Member (Idle past 4890 days) Posts: 140 From: Virginia, USA Joined: |
nwr writes: A prediction is not a general statement. I agree with Straggler's response to your post. To put it in other words: Scientific predictions always assume general principles (e.g., the uniformity of nature) that can be derived by no method other than inductive reasoning. I am still waiting for you to describe a reasonable alternative to the method of scientific prediction we have been describing. If you have managed to accomplish what Newton and Hume -- and all scientists and philosophers since -- have not been able to accomplish, please share this invaluable discovery with the world.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Something peer reviewed that clearly uses induction. 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. 'Clearly refutes' is an unusual term - there are certainly papers in the scientific literature that disagree with Popper such as International Journal of Epidemiology 1998:27:543-548Induction versus Popper: substance versus semantics, Sander Greenland, but clearly refuting something like Popper's opinions? Surely that would come down to a matter of opinion in its own right? The cited paper gives some perceived problems and areas of agreement with Popper, and that's all you are likely to get from an honest writer. But your former challenge is empty of content. I asked you, in a number of ways
quote: And your response is to take part of my formulation of my challenge 'What would be evidence of induction in science?' and try to answer that literally. But my overall question, the point of the words I wrote was to try to get you to tell me what would a clear use of induction look like? I have pointed at examples in peer reviewed work and you deny it is induction. So what would it look like so that I might try and find it in the literature.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
The Pythagorus theorem is still a general principle that is derived by deductive reasoning. But is it not a particular theorem that was derived from more general principles of geometry?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
The explanation cannot be deduced from the definition. However, if you would like to try, I would be interested in seeing that.
It was your link.
You don't agree with what it says. I see no reason to justify what it says when you are the one that posted it. nwr writes:
Yes. I gave you a link the first time. There's no point in your repeated demands.But the webpage disagreed with your definition of deductive reasoning. Which is why I asked you to provide a link that you actually agreed with. But you are correct: "There's no point in your repeated demands."Repeatedly asking you for something that you haven't got (and seems to not exist) isn't going to produce results. Face it: it is not everyone else that is wrong.It is just you. p.s.It is good to see that you acknowledge that your comment regarding Pythagoras' Theorem was both incorrect and off-topic. Apology accepted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
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. And if it is derived from the general principles of geometry then it does not serve as a falsifying example of the idea that deduction is deriving particulars from generals.
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. I know, I've been arguing this for some time now, I'm glad to see you agree with this. That's why I think induction is central to science. What has this to do with the derivation of Pythagoras' Theorem?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen Push Member (Idle past 4890 days) Posts: 140 From: Virginia, USA Joined: |
nwr writes: Modulous writes: What would be evidence of induction in science? Something peer reviewed that clearly uses induction. Quotes below from an article from the long-term evolution experiment (LTEE) show how the researchers used induction. Specific observation:
Thus, the evolution of this phenotype was contingent on the particular history of that population. Generalized conclusion:
More generally, we suggest that historical contingency is especially important when it facilitates the evolution of key innovations that are not easily evolved by gradual, cumulative selection.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen Push Member (Idle past 4890 days) Posts: 140 From: Virginia, USA Joined: |
nwr writes: I'm still waiting for the citation to a peer reviewed scholarly article that decisively demonstrates that Popper was wrong about induction. Wesley C. Salmon. Rational Prediction. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 32, No. 2 (June 1981), pp. 115-125.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Stephen Push writes:
I realise that the link was not aimed directly at me, but thank you. Wesley C. Salmon. Rational Prediction. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 32, No. 2 (June 1981), pp. 115-125.It was a very interesting read. (I quite like how Mr. Salmon writes too.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Jon writes: Isn't it all still tested? We don't judge on reliability until things are tested. 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" Message 178 Inductive reasoning is unavoidable in science Jon.
Jon writes: So, why does it matter? 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. You might as well use a random axiom generator.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Jon writes: 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. Sanity from Jon? Has the world stopped spinning?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Sanity from Jon? Has the world stopped spinning? If you admit that this is a sane argument, then what reason is there for your continued debating against my position in this thread other than your severe misunderstanding of my arguments? Perhaps if you find yourself in agreement with this statement, then it is time to set aside the nitpicking and call it a day. Jon Check out Apollo's Temple! Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024