Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 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
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 508 of 744 (592761)
11-21-2010 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 502 by nwr
11-21-2010 6:45 PM


Re: Universal Principles
nwr writes:
Panda writes:
Well, that is the definition of deductive reasoning - it increases our knowledge.
No, that is not the definition of deductive reasoning.
Thanks for the link.
This is a quote from it:
quote:
Deductive Reasoning is a method of gaining knowledge.
nwr writes:
Panda writes:
By definition: you cannot make general/universal rules/laws using deductive reasoning.
Who came up with that absurdity? It is refuted on just about every page of a mathematics book.
Deductive reasoning moves from a general premise to a more specific conclusion.
Method of reasoning from general to particular
inference by reasoning from the general to the specific.
reasoning from the general to the particular (or from cause to effect)
inference in which the conclusion is of no greater generality than the premises.
These are just some from the first page when googling "Deductive Reasoning Definition".
Could you give some links describing what you think the definition is?
If not, then:
By definition: you cannot make general/universal rules/laws using deductive reasoning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 502 by nwr, posted 11-21-2010 6:45 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 520 by nwr, posted 11-22-2010 5:08 PM Panda has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 512 of 744 (592812)
11-22-2010 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 511 by Jon
11-22-2010 9:46 AM


Re: Nwr: "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves"
Jon writes:
There is, thus, no reason why 'guesses' and 'opinions' cannot be accurate predictions
A guess can be an accurate prediction.
An opinion can be an accurate prediction.
Jon writes:
Science tends to favor those 'guesses' and 'opinions' that create accurate predictions...
A guess can create an accurate prediction.
An opinion can create an accurate prediction.
Maybe you need to sort out what you are trying to say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 511 by Jon, posted 11-22-2010 9:46 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 514 by Jon, posted 11-22-2010 12:10 PM Panda has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 515 of 744 (592827)
11-22-2010 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 513 by Jon
11-22-2010 12:07 PM


Re: induction
This is just to point out something to Modulous:
Jon writes:
But you are, again, dealing with two separate issues. Deduction says nothing about the actual truth of anything.
Jon writes:
It is deductive not because the conclusion is true (its actual truth will hinge on the quality of the premises), but because it is true given the premises.
Jon writes:
Thus, it is not required that deduction make 'necessarily true' conclusions, only that it make conclusions that are necessarily true given the premisesthis is, afterall, its definition.
Jon writes:
The deductive conclusion is more fully supported by the stated premises, but neither conclusion is more likely to be true, since the inductive leap is as improbable as the third premise in the deductive argument.
This is Jon equivocating between logical truth and factual truth.
It would appear that at least half of Jon's reply consists of this equivocation.
Do you wonder if it is even worth trying to discuss anything with Jon?
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 513 by Jon, posted 11-22-2010 12:07 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 518 by Straggler, posted 11-22-2010 2:35 PM Panda has seen this message but not replied
 Message 519 by Jon, posted 11-22-2010 4:52 PM Panda has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 527 of 744 (592881)
11-22-2010 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 520 by nwr
11-22-2010 5:08 PM


Re: Universal Principles
nwr writes:
It is not a quote from the definition. It is a quote from the commentary.
You agree with the definition but disagree with the explanation of the definition?
Could you maybe post some links that give an explanation that you do agree with?
nwr writes:
Provide a precise reference to the "definition" that you claim to be using.
I provided several links.
They all concur with my definition.
So, do you have no links to any site advocating your definition then?
I did previously ask for links.
So far you have given me one link and then disagreed with it.
Does nowhere else on the internet agree with your defintion of deductive reasoning?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 520 by nwr, posted 11-22-2010 5:08 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 529 by nwr, posted 11-22-2010 5:54 PM Panda has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 533 of 744 (592893)
11-22-2010 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 529 by nwr
11-22-2010 5:54 PM


Re: Universal Principles
nwr writes:
That sure seems to contradict what you have been claiming.
I see no contradiction - it agrees with what I said.
If you think there is a contradiction then please point it out.
So, no links to any sites that agree with your definition?
Not one?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 529 by nwr, posted 11-22-2010 5:54 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 549 by nwr, posted 11-23-2010 6:32 PM Panda has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 553 of 744 (593024)
11-23-2010 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 549 by nwr
11-23-2010 6:32 PM


Re: Universal Principles
nwr writes:
It explicitly says "Everything in the conclusion of a valid deductive argument must also be contained in the premises." And that's just a way of saying that it produces nothing new.
That directly contradicts what was implied by your question "What new information is deduced?" (Message 417)
Oh really?
You mean that the reply I gave to the request:
nwr writes:
Panda writes:
By definition: you cannot make general/universal rules/laws using deductive reasoning.
Provide a precise reference to the "definition" that you claim to be using.
does not answer the question you inferred from a different sentence?
If you want an answer to a question then you need to type that question in a post and not just expect me to guess what you want to know.
You asked where my definition came from.
I gave several links.
The definition you chose from my links concurs with the definition I posted.
If you think it contradicts my definition then please explain why.
nwr writes:
WTF?
I gave a link to a definition in an earlier post. Then in Message 529, I quoted from your link to support the point.
In the link you provided, you disagreed with the explanation of the definition.
That means that either the explanation is wrong or you don't understand the definition.
I have no reason to think that the explanation is wrong.
Why not post a link to a site that you agree with completely, instead?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 549 by nwr, posted 11-23-2010 6:32 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 564 by nwr, posted 11-24-2010 5:51 PM Panda has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 577 of 744 (593184)
11-24-2010 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 564 by nwr
11-24-2010 5:51 PM


Re: Universal Principles
nwr writes:
Are we still on that bullshit.
You think that your questions are bullshit?
Well, regardless, your questions have been asked and answered.
My questions have been evaded.
nwr writes:
The reply you gave to that "by definition" claim did not support the claim.
I repeat:
You claim that the definitions conflict? Well - as I have repeatedly asked - explain why. Stop making dumb assertions.
nwr writes:
Just give one link with a definition that actually supports your claim (if there is one). The definitions I saw in your links did not support your claim.
I gave you 5 links - pick one of them.
If you are claiming that the definitions do not support my claim then - as I repeatedly ask - explain why. Stop making dumb assertions.
nwr writes:
The Pythagorus theorem is still a general principle that is derived by deductive reasoning.
Pythagorus' theorem is a mathematical proof - it is called a theorem for a reason.
But in science you have theories not theorems.
Clearly you don't understand the difference.
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it.
Remember: the thread subject is "Induction and Science".
nwr writes:
Quite so. But the definition is fine, even if the explanation is defective.
That means that you must have failed to understand the definition, as there is no reason for me to think that the explanation is wrong.
Or can you justify why I should disagree with an explanation that accurately expounds deductive reasoning?
So, one more time:
Can you post a link to any web page that gives a definition of deductive reasoning that you [completely] agree with?
Considering how mind-bogglingly easy it is to post a link - I am left with the unavoidable conclusion that there is no-one else that defines deductive reasoning the way you do.
It is as if you are arguing that cats can fly because you call the the feathered animals in your garden 'cats'.
-----------------------
Just as an extra note: Please address the points I raise. Else these replies will just get longer due to me having to repeat myself.
As an example:
Panda writes:
In the link you provided, you disagreed with the explanation of the definition.
That means that either the explanation is wrong or you don't understand the definition.
I have no reason to think that the explanation is wrong.
nwr writes:
Panda writes:
In the link you provided, you disagreed with the explanation of the definition.
Quite so. But the definition is fine, even if the explanation is defective.
which meant I had to repeat myself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 564 by nwr, posted 11-24-2010 5:51 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 596 by nwr, posted 11-25-2010 6:38 PM Panda has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 603 of 744 (593276)
11-25-2010 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 596 by nwr
11-25-2010 6:38 PM


Re: Universal Principles
nwr writes:
Quite so. But the definition is fine, even if the explanation is defective.
That means that you must have failed to understand the definition, as there is no reason for me to think that the explanation is wrong.
Or can you justify why I should disagree with an explanation that accurately expounds deductive reasoning?
nwr writes:
Panda writes:
So, one more time:
Can you post a link to any web page that gives a definition of deductive reasoning that you [completely] agree with?
[complete and utter silence]
I accept your inability to comply with my repeated request to provide a link as your tacit agreement that you are the only person in the known world that defines 'deductive reasoning' in the way that you do.
You need to realise that when you are at the stage when you think "It is not me that is wrong! It is everyone else that is wrong!" - then it is definitely you that is wrong.
nwr writes:
I don't think I have suggested that. Rather, I have said that what you claimed to be true by definition, isn't.
You asked for links to definitions - I gave links.
You don't like the links? Then explain what is wrong with them. Be specific.
nwr writes:
Are you denying that the Pythagorus result holds for ordinary physical triangles?
No. I am telling you that you are bringing in an off-topic subject.
I repeat: there is a difference between a theorem and a theory.
Learn what it is and then get back on-topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 596 by nwr, posted 11-25-2010 6:38 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 607 by nwr, posted 11-25-2010 7:28 PM Panda has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 605 of 744 (593279)
11-25-2010 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 604 by nwr
11-25-2010 7:21 PM


Re: Nwr: "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves"
nwr writes:
Bullshit.
I do suggest you try to construct a clear valid logical argument supporting your bare assertion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 604 by nwr, posted 11-25-2010 7:21 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 621 of 744 (593302)
11-25-2010 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 607 by nwr
11-25-2010 7:28 PM


Re: Universal Principles
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:
I gave you a link the first time. There's no point in your repeated demands.
Yes.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 607 by nwr, posted 11-25-2010 7:28 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 626 of 744 (593330)
11-26-2010 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 625 by Stephen Push
11-26-2010 12:10 AM


Re: Nwr: "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves"
I realise that the link was not aimed directly at me, but thank you.
It was a very interesting read.
(I quite like how Mr. Salmon writes too.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 625 by Stephen Push, posted 11-26-2010 12:10 AM Stephen Push has seen this message but not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 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

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 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

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 673 of 744 (593681)
11-28-2010 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 672 by RAZD
11-28-2010 1:59 PM


Re: induction vs deduction elements
Straggler writes:
Panda writes:
By definition: you cannot make general/universal rules/laws using deductive reasoning.
Do you disagree with the above?
Your answers to this question suffer from a lack of context, as you weren't involved in the original conversation.
It was used in response to the statement: "Inductive reasoning is not used in science - only deductive reasoning is used".
It would be better to ask if you agree with:
"By definition: you cannot make general/universal rules/laws in science without using inductive reasoning."
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 672 by RAZD, posted 11-28-2010 1:59 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 736 of 744 (594213)
12-02-2010 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 734 by nwr
12-02-2010 3:48 PM


Re: Why are you right?
nwr writes:
  • All the millions of observations have reported that the sun and stars move around a stationary earth;
  • therefore the earth is not at all stationary; it is the sun and stars that are closer to being stationary.
Sorry everyone, but I just have to say:
L O L !!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 734 by nwr, posted 12-02-2010 3:48 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