|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Induction and Science | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I think you're overlooking a piece of nwr's point...
Straggler writes: Without induction how is it possible to have anything that could even be called a universal principle? F = ma Given a mass, m, with an acceleration, a, the force cannot be anything other than F because that is how F is defined. This F force isn't some thing that was stumbled upon through induction, it was derived and defined as that. In that other thread, Message 513, nwr wrote:
quote: I'll write another reply that we can argue about, when I find some more time, but I just thought I'd chime in here and try to show you what I thought you were missing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
No. Force, mass, and acceleration are properties of the world. They -- and their relationship expressed as F=ma -- were discovered through observation and experiment. See, I'm not so sure about that bolded part. For things like Pi (3.14159...), I'd expect, say, an alien culture from the planet Arcturus (an internet high five to anyone who gets that reference [escept Oni 'cause I know he knows]) to come to the exact same number as we have, because its an intrinsic property of the world. But I would not expect them to come to the same categorizations of things like mass and accelaration and the force that those yield. They might have F = xyz, where they're defining force in a way that employs something else that we don't. Ya know what I mean? You see the difference?
Using induction, this law of nature was assumed to apply to all relevant instances anywhere in the universe -- past, present, and future. But the F can't be anything other than the m times the a because that's what it is defined as being. We don't need to induce anything about the future to maintain a definition... well, maybe some things but they'd be ridiculous to question. The point is that F=ma is different from a theory like 'All swans are white' because it doesn't use the same inductive process.
nwr is confused about what a standard is. Newton's laws can be used to develop standards when scientists agree to plug certain values into an equation. Unlike laws, standards are not assumed to be universal; they are conventions and can be changed at any time by mutual consent. Or maybe he's not really saying what you think he is. I'm not sure what is meant by a "universal standard"... I'd guess it would be somehting like Pi. But I am getting the point of there being scientific stuffs that haven't employed the inductive process. Although I do see that science can and does use induction. I think his point has been better expressed in other posts (and in other threads), but I'm not putting the time into outlining it
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
CS writes:
Doesn't it? The point is that F=ma is different from a theory like 'All swans are white' because it doesn't use the same inductive process. I don't think so.
Do you think that the scientific conclusion is that F=ma only applies to those occurrances we have actually observed rather than ALL events where forces apply? No. F, what that capital letter is representing, equals mass time acceleration. It is defined as that and cannot be anything else.
CS writes: But the F can't be anything other than the m times the a because that's what it is defined as being. Can't be? Correct. Anything else would not be F.
Are you saing that nature cannot be applying forces that are proportional to the mass squared elsewhere in the universe because our theory simply won't allow that to occur?
No. If you had a force that was not equal to mass times acceleration, then you would not have the F. The alien culture could have their own F2 that was proportional to m2, like I explained in the message you replied to.
CS Do you think nature cares what the standard is or will behave in accordance with this standard just because we have defined it as a standard? Really!? Of course not. Gawd!
Without induction what reason do you have to expect your standard to apply to anything that has not been directly observed to behave in the standard manner? This is a totally different subject. As the point is, this isn't an inductive issue.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Catholic Scientist writes:
Since F=ma is causing such confusion, how about Newton's 3rd Law of Motion.
No. F, what that capital letter is representing, equals mass time acceleration. It is defined as that and cannot be anything else.quote:I am sure you wouldn't say that Newton had tested every action. And surely you wouldn't say that Newton's laws don't apply to future actions. So, could you please explain how the words 'every' and 'always' can be used without inductive reasoning?
That's beside the point. I'm not saying that induction is never used. I'm saying that in the particular instance of the 2nd law, it wasn't. And actually, that 3rd law doesn't apply to 'every' and 'always', its for specific situations. E.g. a ball of jello isn't going to exert an equal and opposite force on a ball of lead because the jello will deform. I don't think that one's going to help.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
ABE: I see you've answered some of my questions in the previous post: what we're talking about as universal principles and whether or not you've done experiments in a physics lab... There's no need to answer them again here, and nothing really else that needs to be addressed, so I'll hide it and reply to your another post.
And therein lies the fundamental difference between standards and universal principles. Universal principles are not definitions. Universal principles impose conclusions (albeit tentative and falsifiable ones) on as yet unobserved aspects of nature. I don't even know what people are talking about with these "universal priciples"... I mean, I know what universal means and I know what a principle is, but I'm not familiar with any universal principles of science, or anything like that. Can you give me some examples of them? I tried Googling but I didn't really find anything. Just this:
Kant’s Universal Principles of Natural Science And I don't think that's what you're talking about.
When we say F=ma we are not just stating a definition and baselessly hoping (or not) that future observations will comply as per a standard. We are instead actually inductively concluding that nature will behave in a manner that is consistent with this regardless of when or where the event in question takes place. No, I don't think we're saying that at all. I think we stating a definition and then not specifically addressing what is going to happen in the future.
If standards cannot be used to derive universal principles then they cannot be considered to represent how science actually works in the real world. Nwr’s description of non-inductive science is refuted as unable to cope with the real workings of that which it claims to describe. I think you're mistaken about how science actualy works. Have you ever been in a physics lab and done the experiments? Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
You are conflating derivation with application. No, I am simply not talking about application. I'm just talking about the derivation. Back in the Peanut Gallery thread, you replied to this from nwr:
quote: by asking what he was doing. Now, in this thread I see this from you in Message 347:
Without induction how is it possible to have anything that could even be called a universal principle? It stems back to Message 327:
Without induction how is it possible to have anything that could even be called a universal principle? By it’s very definition a universal principle is a conclusion that has been extrapolated to apply beyond those instances actually observed. Universal principles such as Newton’s third law or Newton’s law of gravitation are considered to apply in ALL relevant cases. Regardless of where or when and whether or not anyone was actually observing.
How can a universal scientific principle exist without inductive reasoning? I brought in F=ma to show that you can have something like a universal principle without having to use inductive logic to get it. I thought you were simply overlooking something and did not intend to argue much about it.
Even if F=ma was not derived inductively (and I would argue that it was at least in part) it is indisputably applied inductively. That's beside the point I wanted to raise here. But now, with your other post on what you're talknig about as universal principles, I'n not so sure that F=ma is really a relevant example of that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Hey RAZD,
My Thanksgiving was awesome, thanks. A bit of a side point, but this is the same point I entered this debate with...
No matter how well established a theory is, it can never be more than possibly true, because inductive logic does not give you a conclusion of true\fact. This holds even when a theory is called a law. I thought other's were saying that you cannot have scientific theories without induction, and now I see you looking like you're on a slippery slope. I brought up the law "F = m*a" earlier so lets just use that again. I see laws like this as descriptive definition rather than an explanatory theory. I don't think it really relies on induction and that it can be said to be true/fact. I mean, F cannot be anything other than m*a. So yeah, theories that are laws can possibly be said to be true/fact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
So Newtons second law is unfalsifiable as far as you are concerned? No, theoretically it could be falsified. Besides, doesn't Special Relativity muck it up? But F cannot be anything other than m*a, otherwise it wouldn't be F. That's what "=" means.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
But the fact that they are not true by virtue of simply being defined to be so rather mucks up your point doesn't it? Equivocally, I suppose. As you said: "They are exceptionally good approximations to almost all practically encountered situations." I guess if you want to say that because there an exception then we shouldn't be calling it "true", then you're right. But then, if F=ma is not true, doesn't your point about the inductive applications of it also fail? Regardless, isn't it still a decent example of a way that science can yield theories without needing induction?
Straggler writes:
Without induction how is it possible to have anything that could even be called a universal principle?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
No. Because it's limitations are considered by science to be as universal as the law itself. We wouldn't say that the second law of thermodynamics is not a universal principle in science because it is limited to closed systems would we? Nope, which is why its wierd that you're doing that to F=ma.
CS writes: Regardless, isn't it still a decent example of a way that science can yield theories without needing induction? As long as we are applying laws such as the one in question to specific as yet unobserved situations and expecting nature to operate in accordance with these laws we are doing so on the basis of inductively concluding the uniformity of nature. I'll take that as a yes.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024