Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Induction and Science
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

  
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

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


Message 664 of 744 (593592)
11-27-2010 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 663 by Stephen Push
11-27-2010 9:47 PM


Re: induction vs deduction elements
Hi Stephen Push, thanks.
That is technically a deductive argument, but it conceals a lot of non-deductive work. The first two lines of your syllogism rely on the work done by Darwin and others -- using the non-deductive IBE method -- to establish the theory of evolution. To know whether the third line is true, scientists would have to use IBE to determine where this new animal fits into the tree of life.
Darwin et al:
  1. selection in isolated domesticated animals leads to variations that are noticeably different from wild populations.
  2. selection in the wild occurs through natural differences in breeding success and survival success
    ∴ selection in the wild can lead to variations that are noticeably different in isolated population
That current known dogs are canines is an observed fact of common ancestry, not an inductive conclusion.
That current known canines are mammals is an observed fact of common ancestry, not an inductive conclusion.
Of course, part of this is that the definition of canine includes dogs and the definition of mammals includes canines.
Rather than a "best guess," that sounds like a shot in the dark. I find it hard to imagine how such a line of reasoning could be useful in actual scientific research.
Indeed it seems very weak in this example, because we know of mammals that are not canines and canines that are not dogs. When we have conditions where we have no such contradictory evidence there is a possibility that can be tested and that can lead to falsification.
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 663 by Stephen Push, posted 11-27-2010 9:47 PM Stephen Push has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 666 by Stephen Push, posted 11-28-2010 1:34 AM RAZD has replied

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


Message 665 of 744 (593595)
11-27-2010 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 661 by Straggler
11-27-2010 8:10 PM


Re: induction vs deduction elements
Hi Straggler, my apologies.
IF some THEN all.
You are correct, I should have said that we conclude that all tested A is B.
How is this not exactly what you are doing?
The deductive part is the confirmation of the foundational evidence for an hypothesis being consistent with the hypothesis.
All tested A are also B.
From there you make inductive guesses on what testing will show. When such testing is done, then deductive logic will determine whether or not the concept is invalidated.
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 661 by Straggler, posted 11-27-2010 8:10 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 668 by Straggler, posted 11-28-2010 6:00 AM RAZD has replied

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


Message 669 of 744 (593637)
11-28-2010 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 668 by Straggler
11-28-2010 6:00 AM


Re: induction vs deduction elements
Hi Straggler,
Then you haven't deduced anything. You have simply gone in a circle and ended up back where you started. I.e. with your observation that all thus far observed instanced of A are B.
Not really - the deduction is the formalization of the evidence in such a way that it leads to the hypothesis.
Observes that some known evidence is A
Selects the evidence that is A
Observes that the selected evidence is B
Concludes that all tested A is B
The hypothesis is then formed as follows
All tested A is B
IF this pattern holds for all A
THEN all A is B
Test to see if the pattern holds.
If A is found that is notB then P2 is false and the conclusion is falsified, by deductive logic.
Do you really think this is a guess?
Do you know the difference between "best (or educated) guess" and just "guess"? Or do you think this is "just a theory"?
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 668 by Straggler, posted 11-28-2010 6:00 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 671 by Straggler, posted 11-28-2010 9:44 AM RAZD has replied

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


Message 670 of 744 (593640)
11-28-2010 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 666 by Stephen Push
11-28-2010 1:34 AM


Re: induction vs deduction elements
Hi Stephen Push,
... But it is not very helpful because it presupposes common decent, a concept which I believe was developed largely by non-deductive means.
Really? The fact remains that common descent is highly tested, and has not yet been falsified for a single species. As such, it is not "presupposed" but evidence based and a highly tested theory.
In this experiment wild foxes were bred into dog-like foxes, but they are still foxes by common descent:
Page not found | Animal Sciences | UIUC
No presupposition there.
If we were to presuppose special creation rather than common decent, it would not be an observed fact that dogs are canines or that canines are mammals.
Which, in essence, falsifies special creation, via deductive logic, as we see that they (a) are canines (posses the characteristics of canines), (b) are mammals (posses the characteristics of mammals), and (c) bear the evidence of common descent in DNA and fossil records. If you know of a dog that is not a canine or not a mammal, then let me know.
Presupposition is a bad way to do science, because it is not based on evidence but on wishing based on opinion. Unfortunately, for presuppositionists, opinion has little effect on reality.
If we presupposed (guessed without evidence) that speciation only occurs during a full moon, then we would expect to see speciation occur only during full moons: we don't, so that presupposition is falsified.
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 666 by Stephen Push, posted 11-28-2010 1:34 AM Stephen Push has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 682 by Stephen Push, posted 11-28-2010 11:28 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 672 of 744 (593676)
11-28-2010 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 671 by Straggler
11-28-2010 9:44 AM


Re: induction vs deduction elements
Hi Straggler,
And if it isn't falsified after a great deal of testing? Can we at any point inductively (but tentativley) conclude that all A is B with confidence?
Um, we can never reach a deductive conclusion that all A is B without testing all A, as that would be making an unwarranted assumption.
Yes you can reach a high degree of confidence that a theory is (tentatively) correct, but you cannot make the final claim that it is true.
But a high degree of confidence that all A is B, does not mean that it is highly likely that all A is B -- the first is opinion, and the second is (properly) a result of evaluation of all the possibilities, many of which may be unknown and therefore impossible to evaluate.
One thing that must be considered is that the falsification tests used may not be properly\completely testing the hypothesis, and that another falsification test will be developed and end up falsifying the concept.
Panda writes:
By definition: you cannot make general/universal rules/laws using deductive reasoning.
Do you disagree with the above?
I would agree that you cannot make inductive conclusions using deductive reasoning.
I would agree that you can never make the deductive conclusion that all A is B without evidence that all A is in fact B.
I would agree that any "general/universal rule/law" conclusion that can be reached by deductive logic would be called a fact.
Without reaching the level of fact, the closest you can get is having a high degree of confidence that all A is likely to be B, but never get to the point of concluding all A is B without evidence that all A is in fact B, and this in inherent in the formation due to the IF statement:
All tested A is B
IF this pattern holds for all A
THEN all A is B
Only if all A is tested and found to be B can we reach a deductive conclusion that all A is B, and this state is relatively unlikely to occur for many conditions, but when it does then the result is regarded as fact (all A become all tested A) rather than a "general/universal rule/law".
But all it takes is one A that is notB to reach the deductive conclusion that not all A is B, as the concept of all A is B has been falsified by contrary evidence.
Inductive logic can lead to testing, but the end result must be evaluated by deductive logic based on, and supported by, evidence.
To properly form a scientific theory you start by evaluating known evidence (A) and deduce some trait that is common to all the known evidence (is B). Then you generalize by induction to make predictions of what you would see if the hypothesis were true and what you would see if the hypothesis were false, then you test those predictions, and from the results you apply the results to the original deductive process to see if it holds up or needs revision.
All tested A is B
IF this pattern holds for all A
THEN all A is B
Form (inductive) hypothesis: all A (tentatively) is B
Test
Review
If any new A is notB then hypothesis is invalidated by deductive logic.
If all new A tested continues to be B then you cannot confirm the hypothesis by deductive logic, unless all A is tested.
Inductive logic does not do this either, though it can give you the false impression that all A is B when there is no contrary evidence.
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 671 by Straggler, posted 11-28-2010 9:44 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 673 by Panda, posted 11-28-2010 3:54 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 686 by Straggler, posted 11-29-2010 1:19 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 696 of 744 (593853)
11-29-2010 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 687 by Stephen Push
11-29-2010 1:53 PM


Re: induction vs deduction elements
Hi Stephen Push,
I apologize if I misinterpreted your post.
May I apologize?
If the latter is what you meant, then your argument is inductive rather than deductive, because you have drawn generalized conclusions from specific observations. The terms "any new dog species" and "any new canine species" may seem specific, but those terms are synonymous with "all dog species" and "all canine species."
I came in late to the discussion, and my initial responses on this thread were a little muddled. Subsequently, I have been putting some time\effort into reconciling what I see as problems with them. As I see it, there are both deductive and inductive elements involved in the scientific process, and that they are easily confused if care is not taken with the semantics.
Initial phase - deductive: evaluate the available evidence and deduct common traits\elements, things that are true\fact about the available evidence, hopefully organized into some new perspective that leads one to wonder if it is true in a more general sense.
Second phase - inductive: make a generalization\hypothesis from the (re)structured available evidence based on the deduced common traits\elements to predict what should be observed if true and not observed if false.
Third phase - deductive: evaluate the results of testing to see if the results (a) invalidate the inductive generalization\hypothesis or (b) adds new evidence to the group of available evidence with the original common traits\elements (increases the pool of true\fact elements of available (now including new) evidence that is the foundation for the generalization\hypothesis.
In this regard, only the elements of the first and third phase can be considered as factual\true (the deductive contribution) while the second phase can be either falsified or possibly true (the inductive contribution).
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 believe that this is, in essence, your argument (or a major portion thereof) in this thread, yes?
In this regard, the inductive element in science is not to determine what is fact\true, but to show what should be tested to see if it can help define what is fact\true.
The important thing, as I see it, is that this process sifts evidence and concepts and eliminates falsified concepts while organizing facts into an explanatory framework -- our "best guess" or "best known explanation" of the evidence -- and that the pool of known evidence\facts is increased whether a theory is falsified or not. In this way the process is an incremental approximation of truth that continually gets closer to reality, even if it can't arrive at a definitive conclusion.
In this regard it is not important what the theory states, or what your presuppositions are, as what is important is what is determined in the course of the process to be false (and discarded) and what is determined to be additional facts to incorporate into the fund of knowledge to use in the process of making more tests and theories.
(By the way, I don't know why you included the third premise. It seems unnecessary.)
It was intended as an observation of new evidence that had not yet been evaluated - in essence a prediction. The kind of new evidence that is provided by the dog-like foxes.
Reply to Message 682
I agree. The point I am trying to make is that this evidence-based and highly tested theory has been developed largely with non-deductive methods. Your deductive syllogism seemed to take that prior work for granted and thus appeared to give deduction credit for knowledge that had been discovered non-deductively.
Is it? As we see above, the facts\truths that we can know are determined deductively from the original evidence and the added information from the testing. This knowledge is discovered by the testing and deductive evaluation parts of the process, not by the inductive process. Let's try an analogy:
I have a rifle set up on a fixed mount 1000 yards from a target. With the gun-sight I make my first approximation of aiming the rifle at the target. I take 10 shots with that setting, then measure the results. The scatter in the shots from their mean value determines how effectively the rifle reproduces the same results from a test, the difference between the mean value and the target center determines the accuracy of the initial approximation. I make a vertical adjustment in the rifle setup in the direction that the mean value was vertically off from the target center and repeat the shots and measurements, then make another vertical adjustment towards the center in proportion to the remaining delta to the center and the difference in the two shot patterns. I do the same thing in the horizontal adjustments. All else being equal, and not having any other variables that are not controlled by the rifle setting (variable cross-wind etc), I should be able in fairly short order to reach a reasonable accuracy within the ability of the rifle to reproduce the same results in repeated tests, regardless of where my initial shots ended up.
It is the deductive process in the evaluation of the evidence that brings the pattern closer to the target center. If I just relied on induction then I could go back and forth with varying degrees of success, but never approaching the center in the way that deductive analysis does.
Imagine that one of these dog-like foxes escaped and you found it without knowing what it was or where it came from. How would you determine its origins? Could you do so by a completely deductive method? I think not. You might look at morphology, behavior, biochemistry, and genetics. You might try to breed it with other canids to see with which species it produced viable, fertile offspring. I submit that you would be using induction and/or inference to the best explanation more than deduction in this research.
Good question.
Looking at it morphologically, we should determine that it had many elements of foxes (bones, skeletal proportions, teeth, organs, etc) and several elements of dogs (tail shape, skin & fur coloring). By behavior we should also see a mixture of fox and dog behaviors (as evidenced in the videos), while genetics should show that it had many elements of foxes (homologies) but some of not-foxes (derived), and that elements consistent with dogs would also be consistent with wolves and wild foxes, and more elements should be shared with wild foxes than either wolves or dogs. In biochemistry we should see lowered levels of adrenaline (again as documented in the studies) compared to wild foxes, and that dogs would have similar (analogous) lowered levels of adrenaline compared to wolves (this apparently - though not confirmed - is one of the effects of domestication on domesticated species according to the study) and that this affects the development of the fetus\young to produce the changes in morphology observed (again as shown in many domesticated species, according to the study, showing that this is an analogous element rather than a homologous element between dogs and dog-like foxes). {phase one}
From the morphology you could conclude that the dog-like fox could be a hybrid between fox and dog. From the behavior your could also conclude that the dog-like fox could be a hybrid between fox and dog or that the dog-like fox had been raised in a dog-like environment. From genetics you could conclude that the dog-like fox is a descendant from wild foxes. From the biochemistry you could conclude that the dog-like fox is a descendant from wild foxes with development modified by lower adrenaline. {phase two}
Using cladistics to compare all the common and different elements you should then find that the most parsimonious explanation was that the dog-like fox was a descendant of wild foxes. {phase three}
This would be a statistically deduced most likely answer:
Cladistics - Wikipedia
quote:
Cladistics is also distinguished by its emphasis on parsimony and hypothesis testing (particularly falsificationism), rather than subjective decisions that some other taxonomic systems rely upon.[3]
This is the kind of rigorous empirical testing and deductive evaluation used in biology to validate common descent in the larger picture.
There it is again. A facile deductive argument is given credit for the really interesting work that was done to establish (a), (b), and (c) using mostly non-deductive methods.
If we were to start by assuming special creation of the dog-like fox, then we would test for elements that are not consistent with dogs, foxes, canines or mammals. Not finding any we would conclude that there is no evidence of any process other than common descent from existing species. This leaves special creation as god-directed evolution causing what we see as natural processes, and that still results in the most parsimonious explanation being that the dog-like fox was a (directed) descendant of wild foxes. As such
your complaint is irrelevant.
Please forgive me if I didn't explain my position clearly. I never meant to imply that presupposition is a good way to do science. By "presupposes" I meant that your deductive argument assumed the truth of the premises without explaining why that assumption was justified.
Yet it is the deductive evaluation of the evidence that either invalidates the theory or shows that we have additional evidence that is consistent with the evidence used to formulate the theory. The deductive analysis of the results of testing brings us closer to reality, and this refines the inductive hypothesis for the next round of testing.
Enjoy.
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 687 by Stephen Push, posted 11-29-2010 1:53 PM Stephen Push has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 698 by Straggler, posted 11-30-2010 6:19 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 699 by Straggler, posted 11-30-2010 6:20 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 701 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-30-2010 10:35 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 742 by Stephen Push, posted 12-03-2010 2:40 AM 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