Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Induction and Science
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 719 of 744 (594073)
12-01-2010 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 718 by New Cat's Eye
12-01-2010 2:52 PM


Re: Truth By Definition
Straggler writes:
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.
Huh? I have explained to you where Newton's second law universally applies and where it doesn't. So what are you taking about?
CS writes:
I'll take that as a yes.
Except that if we consider Newton's second law to be a universal principle as applied to inertial frames it is actually a "No".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 718 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-01-2010 2:52 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

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


Message 721 of 744 (594099)
12-01-2010 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 720 by nwr
12-01-2010 3:48 PM


Re: Why You Are Wrong
Nwr writes:
Which key feature? If you mean falsification, then that is usually taken as intended to help decide between science and pseudo-science.
Nwr writes:
I'll agree that Popper's claim to having solved the induction problem rests on his falsification thesis.
Falsification was the method by which Popper sought to eliminate induction. As conceded by you previously.
Yet you deny this key aspect of Popper's thesis. You deny this whilst simultaneously denying inductive reasoning in science and offering nothing as an alternative. The fact that Popper's thesis ultimately relied on inductive reasoning despite his best attempts does not detract from your failings to provide any positive alternative.
Nwr writes:
You are making stuff up.
I challenge you to provide a positive position. Something you have failed to do in 700+ posts.
Rather than cite an ambiguous and broad philosphical position by linking to somewhere else which you will then, in the face of questioning, deny any concrete adherance to - Why don't you clearly and unequivocally state your non-inductive version of science, including an explanation of the ability of science to make highly accurate and reliable (albeit tentative) conclusions about the future behaviour of natural phenomena.
Explain how your description of science is consistent with the remarkable accuracy and reliability of those conclusions regarding the future behaviour of natural phenomena which you have thus far referred to as guesses and opinions (e.g. the timing of eclipses, the physical behaviour of my soon to be dropped pen, the observed reaction of potassium in water etc. etc.).
Give us your account of science that is consistent with the facts of science as opposed to the one so far espoused by you which is utterly inconsistent with such facts.
I don't think you will be able to.
Nwr writes:
When was the last time that an accepted scientific theory was falsified?
The last time? It occurs in a minor way regularly. But here is an example of the scientific ideal as quoted by Dawkins:
Richard Dawkins writes:
quote:
"I do remember one formative influence in my undergraduate life. There was an elderly professor in my department who had been passionatly keen on a particular theory for, oh!, a number of years and one day an American visiting researcher came and he completely and utterly disproved our old man's hyphothesis. The old man strode to the front, shook his hand and said "My dear fellow, I wish to thank you, I've been wrong these fifteen years". And we all clapped our hands raw. That was the scientific ideal. Of somebody who had a lot invested, a lifetime almost invested in a theory and he was rejoicing that he had been shown wrong and that scientific truth had been advanced"
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 720 by nwr, posted 12-01-2010 3:48 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 722 by nwr, posted 12-01-2010 6:36 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 723 of 744 (594109)
12-01-2010 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 722 by nwr
12-01-2010 6:36 PM


Re: Why You Are Wrong
Nwr writes:
If induction is not actually used, then falsification is not required in order to overcome the (non-existent) need for induction.
Nwr writes:
I'll agree that Popper's claim to having solved the induction problem rests on his falsification thesis.
So you agree with non-inductive form of science advocated by Popper whilst also agreeing that Popper himself considered this description of science to be incomplete without an alternative to induction. Yet you deny his alternative to induction and offer none of your own.
Fail.
Straggler writes:
I challenge you to provide a positive position. Something you have failed to do in 700+ posts.
Rather than cite an ambiguous and broad philosphical position by linking to somewhere else which you will then, in the face of questioning, deny any concrete adherance to - Why don't you clearly and unequivocally state your non-inductive version of science, including an explanation of the ability of science to make highly accurate and reliable (albeit tentative) conclusions about the future behaviour of natural phenomena.
Explain how your description of science is consistent with the remarkable accuracy and reliability of those conclusions regarding the future behaviour of natural phenomena which you have thus far referred to as guesses and opinions (e.g. the timing of eclipses, the physical behaviour of my soon to be dropped pen, the observed reaction of potassium in water etc. etc.).
Give us your account of science that is consistent with the facts of science as opposed to the one so far espoused by you which is utterly inconsistent with such facts.
Nwr writes:
It's there in Message 513 of thread Peanut Gallery.
Absolute fail.
Explicitly explain how you account for the ability of science to do the things it demonstrably does very adeptly.
If I put a piece of potassium in a glass of water what does science tell us will happen?
You have presented nothing that is able to explain the fact that science can and does make reliable and accurate (albeit tentative) conclusions about specific as yet unobserved events without invoking induction in the form of basing such conclusions on the uniformity of nature and past observations. You are left only with guesses and opinions (to use your nomenclature) regarding the future behaviour of natural phenomena.
Either cite in detail your solution to this problem or just concede that you cannot. No games. No links. Put up or shut up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 722 by nwr, posted 12-01-2010 6:36 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 725 by nwr, posted 12-01-2010 8:25 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 730 of 744 (594162)
12-02-2010 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 725 by nwr
12-01-2010 8:25 PM


Re: Why You Are Wrong
Epic fail. Again.
You have yet to present ANYTHING that is able to explain the fact that science can and does make reliable and accurate (albeit tentative) conclusions about specific as yet unobserved events without invoking induction in the form of basing such conclusions on the uniformity of nature and past observations. You are left only with guesses and opinions (to use your nomenclature) regarding the future behaviour of natural phenomena.
Hume identified this problem. Popper sought to solve it through his falsification thesis and is widely regarded as having failed. Apparently you have resolved it where they were unable to.
Wiki on the problem of induction writes:
2. presupposing that a sequence of events in the future will occur as it always has in the past (for example, that the laws of physics will hold as they have always been observed to hold). Hume called this the Principle of Uniformity of Nature.
The problem calls into question all empirical claims made in everyday life or through the scientific method. Although the problem arguably dates back to the Pyrrhonism of ancient philosophy, David Hume introduced it in the mid-18th century, with the most notable response provided by Karl Popper two centuries later.
Either cite in detail your solution to this problem or just concede that you cannot. No games. No metaphors. No links. Put up or shut up.
Nwr writes:
You reject that without even saying why.
I have repeatedly told you why. Here it is again:
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.
But science can and does do this very effectively. And this is why the description of science you are advocating continues to be refuted.
In a 700+ post thread in which you have blamed the inadequacy of your arguments on poor communication, in which you claim to have solved a problem that has eluded significant figures in philosophy for centuries and in which you have repeatedly stated that science is unable to do that which it demonstrably does very well — Do you really think a link to an ambiguous post in a different thread is a sufficient response when challenged to actually present a clear and definitive position which addresses the problems you have been confronted with?
Either cite in detail how you explain the abilities of science to accurately and reliably predict without relying on the inductive "Principle of Uniformity of Nature" or just concede that you cannot. No games. No metaphors. No links. Put up or shut up.
Nwr writes:
Your commitment to your religion of inductionism is really really deep.
Your commitment to your pet theory is utterly astonishing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 725 by nwr, posted 12-01-2010 8:25 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 731 by nwr, posted 12-02-2010 12:23 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 733 of 744 (594188)
12-02-2010 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 731 by nwr
12-02-2010 12:23 PM


Re: Why You Are Wrong
Talking to you on this topic is too pointless for even me to pursue.
You have too much invested in your pet project to ever concede that you are wrong. You keep telling us what your position isn't. You keep telling us that you agree with a variety of broad philosophical positions and then backtracking out of all the things that define those philosophical positions as things that makes logical sense. You use meaningless metaphors. You bandy around words like "standard" and then deny that "standards" have anything to say about the behaviour of nature.
Whatever exactly your position is it fails because you are clearly advocating a description of science that cannot in any way account for the ability of science to do the things it demonstrably does very adeptly. You are left only with guesses and opinions (to use your nomenclature) regarding the future behaviour of natural phenomena.
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.
But science can and does do this very effectively. And this is why the description of science you are advocating (whatever exactly that is) continues to be refuted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 731 by nwr, posted 12-02-2010 12:23 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 743 of 744 (594359)
12-03-2010 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 737 by nwr
12-02-2010 7:07 PM


Re: Why are you right?
Nwr earlier in this hread writes:
Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves
Nwr writes:
A scientific theory is, primarily, a description of the method rather than a description of the world.
You continue to ignore the indisputable and highly demonstrable ability of science to successfully predict the behaviour of nature.
Specifically how do you explain this ability without invoking the problem identified by Hume? Namely the problem of necessarily having to first inductively conclude that nature will continue to behave in the future as it has been observed to behave thus far. The uniformity of nature.
If I put a piece of potassium in a glass of water what does science tell us will happen?
Nwr writes:
Strggler 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.
But science can and does do this very effectively.
You cannot just ignore the facts because they don't fit in with your pet theory.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 737 by nwr, posted 12-02-2010 7:07 PM nwr 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