Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Induction and Science
Stephen Push
Member (Idle past 4860 days)
Posts: 140
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 646 of 744 (593420)
11-27-2010 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 634 by nwr
11-26-2010 7:21 PM


Re: Nwr: "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves"
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 634 by nwr, posted 11-26-2010 7:21 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 647 of 744 (593422)
11-27-2010 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 641 by nwr
11-26-2010 7:59 PM


Re: A general comment
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 641 by nwr, posted 11-26-2010 7:59 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 649 by anglagard, posted 11-27-2010 1:48 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Stephen Push
Member (Idle past 4860 days)
Posts: 140
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 648 of 744 (593423)
11-27-2010 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 635 by nwr
11-26-2010 7:23 PM


Re: Nwr: "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves"
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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 635 by nwr, posted 11-26-2010 7:23 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 649 of 744 (593425)
11-27-2010 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 647 by crashfrog
11-27-2010 1:25 AM


Re: A general comment
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 647 by crashfrog, posted 11-27-2010 1:25 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 654 by crashfrog, posted 11-27-2010 3:05 PM anglagard has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 650 of 744 (593439)
11-27-2010 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 636 by nwr
11-26-2010 7:28 PM


Re: What would induction in science look like
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 636 by nwr, posted 11-26-2010 7:28 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 674 by nwr, posted 11-28-2010 4:08 PM Modulous has replied

  
Stephen Push
Member (Idle past 4860 days)
Posts: 140
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 10-08-2010


(1)
Message 651 of 744 (593466)
11-27-2010 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 635 by nwr
11-26-2010 7:23 PM


Re: Nwr: "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves"
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 principle known as the uniformity of nature holds that nature will behave in the future as it has in the past.
  • The only evidence for the truth of this principle is that, so far, we have observed that nature has behaved in the present as it had in the past.
  • It is impossible to observe in the present what will happen in the future.
  • Therefore, specific observations that nature has behaved in the present as it had in the past are the only way to justify the generalized conclusion that nature will behave in the future as it has in the past.
  • Therefore, the uniformity of nature principle 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 635 by nwr, posted 11-26-2010 7:23 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Stephen Push
Member (Idle past 4860 days)
Posts: 140
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 10-08-2010


(1)
Message 652 of 744 (593484)
11-27-2010 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 638 by nwr
11-26-2010 7:35 PM


Re: What would induction in science look like
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 638 by nwr, posted 11-26-2010 7:35 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Stephen Push
Member (Idle past 4860 days)
Posts: 140
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 653 of 744 (593502)
11-27-2010 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 639 by nwr
11-26-2010 7:42 PM


Re: Nwr: "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves"
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 639 by nwr, posted 11-26-2010 7:42 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 654 of 744 (593515)
11-27-2010 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 649 by anglagard
11-27-2010 1:48 AM


Re: A general comment
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 649 by anglagard, posted 11-27-2010 1:48 AM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 667 by anglagard, posted 11-28-2010 4:08 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Stephen Push
Member (Idle past 4860 days)
Posts: 140
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 655 of 744 (593522)
11-27-2010 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 600 by nwr
11-25-2010 7:10 PM


Re: Nwr: "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves
nwr writes:
Here's a quote from the Stanford Encyclopedia entry on Popper
quote:
Popper is unusual amongst contemporary philosophers in that he accepts the validity of the Humean critique of induction, and indeed, goes beyond it in arguing that induction is never actually used by the scientist. However, he does not concede that this entails the scepticism which is associated with Hume, and argues that the Baconian/Newtonian insistence on the primacy of ‘pure’ observation, as the initial step in the formation of theories, is completely misguided: all observation is selective and theory-ladenthere are no pure or theory-free observations. In this way he destabilises the traditional view that science can be distinguished from non-science on the basis of its inductive methodology; in contradistinction to this, Popper holds that there is no unique methodology specific to science.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 600 by nwr, posted 11-25-2010 7:10 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 656 by RAZD, posted 11-27-2010 5:36 PM Stephen Push has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 656 of 744 (593541)
11-27-2010 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 655 by Stephen Push
11-27-2010 3:53 PM


induction vs deduction elements
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 concept
Any 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 concept
Any 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, : ...

we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 655 by Stephen Push, posted 11-27-2010 3:53 PM Stephen Push has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 657 by Straggler, posted 11-27-2010 6:23 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 658 by Panda, posted 11-27-2010 6:41 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 662 by Stephen Push, posted 11-27-2010 8:29 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 657 of 744 (593546)
11-27-2010 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 656 by RAZD
11-27-2010 5:36 PM


Re: induction vs deduction elements
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"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 656 by RAZD, posted 11-27-2010 5:36 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 658 of 744 (593554)
11-27-2010 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 656 by RAZD
11-27-2010 5:36 PM


Re: induction vs deduction elements
RADZ writes:
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.
Could you give a real-world example of this, please?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 656 by RAZD, posted 11-27-2010 5:36 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 659 by RAZD, posted 11-27-2010 7:34 PM Panda has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 659 of 744 (593566)
11-27-2010 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 658 by Panda
11-27-2010 6:41 PM


Re: induction vs deduction elements
Hi Panda
Could you give a real-world example of this, please?
All dogs are observed to be canines
All 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 canine
Any new canine species will still be a mammal
Conversely the inductive conclusion\prediction:
Any new canine species will be a dog
Any 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.

we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 658 by Panda, posted 11-27-2010 6:41 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 660 by Panda, posted 11-27-2010 7:48 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 661 by Straggler, posted 11-27-2010 8:10 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 663 by Stephen Push, posted 11-27-2010 9:47 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 687 by Stephen Push, posted 11-29-2010 1:53 PM RAZD has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 660 of 744 (593569)
11-27-2010 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 659 by RAZD
11-27-2010 7:34 PM


Re: induction vs deduction elements
I am having trouble tying your first sentence to your example.
quote:
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.
quote:
All dogs are observed to be canines
All 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 canine
Any new canine species will still be a mammal
Could you specify which aspect of the example is A and which one is B?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 659 by RAZD, posted 11-27-2010 7:34 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024