|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Induction and Science | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen Push Member (Idle past 4860 days) Posts: 140 From: Virginia, USA Joined: |
nwr writes: Straggler writes: 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." That's a good example of using the argument from ignorance. You can't think of an alternative, and therefore you assert that it must be true. That's not how I read Straggler's statement. You have taken the position that his proposition is false. He is asking you for evidence to support your claim. A request for you to provide support for your position cannot be a logical fallacy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
In any case, it doesn't matter. That you don't know of other possibilities does not prove that there are no other possibilities. It kind of constrains the debate, though. I'll be honest, I'm not going to go back over four years of posts, for the very simple reason that you were nonresponsive and evasive at the beginning and you've been nonresponsive and evasive here at the end, so there's no reason to believe that it's somehow different in the middle. And honestly it's as obvious now as it was then - science is primarily a process where generalities are derived from specifics; that's induction or induction-like. Reasoning about a population based on a representative sample? Inductive. Reasoning about universal laws of physics based on experiments located only on Earth? Inductive. Certainly there are examples of science proceeding from other means, but that some science may not be inductive in the narrowest possible sense does not mean that science is not an inductive process - it pretty obviously is, regardless of what questions you'd prefer not to answer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen Push Member (Idle past 4860 days) Posts: 140 From: Virginia, USA Joined: |
nwr writes: Stephen Push writes: 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 the proof that they can be derived by no method other than inductive reasoning. [list]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 837 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
So now that you are back Crashfrog, would you like to resume the debate concerning the science of economics having no empirical validity? I found it rather interesting as your opinions are at least generally well argued, be they informed or not.
The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes. Salman Rushdie This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
If a peer reviewed article were to publish 1000 data point, and then assert "therefore, by induction, statement x is always true", that would seem to be a clear use of induction. If this is the only thing you consider to be induction - then we agree science doesn't generally do this. Though Newton did go from a few data points with pendulums to 'every action has an equal and opposite reaction' and you didn't accept that evidence. I'm thinking science develops a theory which it doesn't say is 'true' but says is 'supported' with 'some degree of confidence' by a limited set of data points. This is what I mean by induction in science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen Push Member (Idle past 4860 days) Posts: 140 From: Virginia, USA Joined:
|
nwr writes: Stephen Push writes: 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 the proof that they can be derived by no method other than inductive reasoning.
The deductive reasoning above can be applied to prove the inductive nature of other scientific laws, theories, or models that claim to predict what will happen in the future based on what has been observed in the past. Edited by Stephen Push, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen Push Member (Idle past 4860 days) Posts: 140 From: Virginia, USA Joined:
|
Stephen Push writes: 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. nwr writes: That reads more as a proposed hypothesis, rather than as an inductive conclusion. You stated what for you would constitute evidence for induction in science, and I provided precisely what you requested. The first sentence I quoted is clearly a specific observation. Note the use of the past tense, singular nouns, and terms such as "this phenotype" and "that population." In the second sentence, the authors alert us that they are proposing a generalized principle by starting off with the clause "More generally," by switching to the present tense, and by writing about plural "innovations" rather than this innovation or that innovation. Is the second sentence a proposed hypothesis? It is only if you are using the broad sense of the word "hypothesis," which is synonymous with "generalized principle." It is not a proposed hypothesis in the narrow sense of a proposition that can be tested by observation or experiment. The latter use would require specific cases of the generalized principle. Edited by Stephen Push, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen Push Member (Idle past 4860 days) Posts: 140 From: Virginia, USA Joined: |
nwr writes: It's an interesting paper. It aims at making a persuasive argument, but it is not a refutation. It does correctly point out some problems with Popper's thesis, particularly in the way it uses corroboration. But it doesn't address the reason that Popper disagrees with induction (the reason is already in the text I quoted from SEP in Message 600, though it seems that reasoning is invisible to most of participants in this thread). Salmon’s paper is a refutation of Popper’s view of induction in science. Salmon shows that induction is necessary for rational prediction — at least in practical decision-making and probably in theoretical work as well. I’m a fan of Popper’s view of the value of falsifiability in the demarcation of science from other fields. But I do not believe that induction and falsifiability are mutually exclusive or that induction-free science is necessary to defend Popper’s view of demarcation. Edited by Stephen Push, : No reason given. Edited by Stephen Push, : No reason given. Edited by Stephen Push, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
So now that you are back Crashfrog, would you like to resume the debate concerning the science of economics having no empirical validity? We could, if you wanted, but I think my views have tempered somewhat - I'm prepared to accept that at least some people are engaged in real empiricial science in the field of economics. I'm still of the opinion that economics is primarily a way for people to identify as partisan in the supposedly non-partisan academic arena, but I've come to accept that at least some economists are genuinely interested in solving problems in a scientific way. If you have an interesting challenge to that view, I'm prepared to talk about it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen Push Member (Idle past 4860 days) Posts: 140 From: Virginia, USA Joined: |
nwr writes: 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. I agree inductive methodology does not distinguish science from non-science. But that doesn't mean science must be induction-free to be distinguished from non-science. Do you believe that acknowledging a role for induction in science would refute Popper's view that falsifiability is the hallmark of science? Edited by Stephen Push, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Stephen Push & nwr, nice discussion.
I agree inductive methodology does not distinguish science from non-science. But that doesn't mean science must be induction-free to be distinguished from non-science. Do you believe that acknowledging a role for induction in science would refute Popper's view that falsifiability is the hallmark of science? I think there is a role for inductive methodology in science, just not in place of deductive methodology. For example:
Let's say we have tested all the elements in A and find that every one has the elements of B as well. Based on the evidence of A that is B, we deduce that all A is B. This predicts that any new A will also be B. Any A that is notB invalidates the conceptAny A that is B expands the area covered by A, but does not confirm that all A is B (there could be A outside B in the diagram). Based on the absence of any evidence of any B that is notA, we can, by inductive logic, extend that conclusion to the possibility that all B is A, and then use that to formulate testing of that concept. Any B that is notA invalidates the conceptAny B that is A expands the area covered by A, but does not confirm that all B is A. Personally I think it is a weaker stance, being more of a "best guess" than a logical conclusion. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : clrty Edited by RAZD, : ... by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
RAZD writes: Personally I think it is a weaker stance, being more of a "best guess" than a logical conclusion. Can you give a example of any universal principle in science which is not a "best guess" by the terms of this argument? E.g. the second law of thermodynamics.
Wiki writes: Second law of thermodynamics: Heat cannot spontaneously flow from a colder location to a hotter location. The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal principle of decay observable in nature. The second law is an observation of the fact that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential tend to even out in a physical system that is isolated from the outside world. Link All it would take is one example of a genuine perpetual motion machine and the universal laws of thermodynamics would be falsified. Are the laws of thermodynaics "best guesses"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3713 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
RADZ writes:
Could you give a real-world example of this, please?
Let's say we have tested all the elements in A and find that every one has the elements of B as well. Based on the evidence of A that is B, we deduce that all A is B. This predicts that any new A will also be B.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Panda
Could you give a real-world example of this, please? All dogs are observed to be caninesAll canines are observed to be mammals A new (species) is observed to be a dog subspecies Deductive conclusion\prediction: Any new dog species will still be a canineAny new canine species will still be a mammal Conversely the inductive conclusion\prediction: Any new canine species will be a dogAny new mammal species will be a canine While it is possible that the new mammal species would be a dog\canine, this is a much weaker prediction than that a new dog species will be a canine\mammal. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3713 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
I am having trouble tying your first sentence to your example.
quote: quote:Could you specify which aspect of the example is A and which one is B?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024