Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,871 Year: 4,128/9,624 Month: 999/974 Week: 326/286 Day: 47/40 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Induction and Science
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 744 (286418)
02-14-2006 10:36 AM


Well to take the case of General Relativity. Einstein deduced it from symmetry arguments and facts about Riemannian geometry as well as general thoughts about the inertial quality of orbiting frames.
From this he deduced the Field Equation, which was then confirmed experimentally.
Nowhere along the way was there anything I'd truly call induction, or at least solely inductive reasoning.
Similar cases apply to QED, QCD and the Standard Model. To a lesser extent than GR though.
Most of physics, particularly condensed matter physics, in the last fifty years has been what I'd call deductive.

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by PaulK, posted 02-14-2006 5:55 PM Son Goku has replied
 Message 99 by nwr, posted 02-15-2006 12:54 AM Son Goku has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 744 (286775)
02-15-2006 6:01 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by PaulK
02-14-2006 5:55 PM


PaulK writes:
A lot of it may be largely deductive now, but I think that you will find that it requires a basis of empirical evidence to start from and further, confirmation will still be inductive in nature.
There is no theory in science that does not involve some givens that have to be derived from empirical evidence. And how can we say that these givens truly apply to the whole universe, without some use of inductive reasoning ?
Without a doubt. I think science was almost purely inductive during its formative years and modern areas of science are founded on these earlier, inductive discoveries.
However I think that science now is more a deductive process.
You can't ever truly get pure-induction or pure-deduction and there is a history of both in the past of science, but I would still say that what’s done today is deductive science, rather than the inductive science of our academic forefathers.
In essence we no longer experiment until we find a pattern, we now the deduce a pattern and do experiments to see if our deduction was correct.
Science still uses induction and relies on a past foundation of inductive work, but I don't think it's the main tool anymore.
Or we could simply consider Einstein's ire of a cosmological constant, his abandonment of the idea and the recent revival of the concept.
The Cosmological constant was always present in his equations, it's impossible to derive them without it. His "mistake" was assuming it had a non-zero value.
nwr writes:
Why do people still cling to the myth that science uses induction?
Essentially because most people have "read science not done science" and still have a Francis Bacon/Benjamin Franklin impression of it.
A bunch of people continuously experimenting to figure something out.
In turn philosophers of science inherit this view and write a philosophy of science based on an old romantic notion of science.
This image of science is a far cry from the kind of work done by Feynman, Schwinger, Tomonaga and Dyson in the 60's on QED, as well as other works in modern science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by PaulK, posted 02-14-2006 5:55 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by PaulK, posted 02-15-2006 6:06 AM Son Goku has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 744 (286787)
02-15-2006 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by PaulK
02-15-2006 6:06 AM


Edit: I see what you meant.
I should say that the image of science as purely or largely inductive is a left over from our impression of science from previous centuries and this bears little resemblance to the science of today.
I do believe that science still uses and did use induction.
This message has been edited by Son Goku, 02-15-2006 06:42 AM
This message has been edited by Son Goku, 02-15-2006 06:43 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by PaulK, posted 02-15-2006 6:06 AM PaulK has 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