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


Message 556 of 744 (593120)
11-24-2010 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 551 by nwr
11-23-2010 6:38 PM


Re: Nwr: "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves"
No you haven't. You have changed the question and skirted around it continuously. But you have never answered it.
Either provide the answer or admit that you cannot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 551 by nwr, posted 11-23-2010 6:38 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 566 by nwr, posted 11-24-2010 6:01 PM Straggler has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 557 of 744 (593135)
11-24-2010 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 545 by Straggler
11-23-2010 7:40 AM


Reapproaching Things
Straggler;
I believe you are reading too much into my statements and are attempting to find disagreements where none need exist. Let's try to deal with things in a more orderly and relevant fashion:
Firstly, your attempt to refute my claim regarding induction through the use of Bill's epistemology is irrelevant in this thread. This thread is about Science; Bill's epistemology has absolutely no place here. Besides, if Bill's epistemology is logical, it will regard induction in the same way induction is regarded in Logic; if it is not logical, then it is illogical and not worth our time.
Secondly, the derivation, or source, of an axiom, premise, or whatever you wish to call it is also irrelevantagain, for the simple reason that this is a science thread. As far as Science is concerned, the origin of our claims is not important: the importance is the degree to which such claims may be supported and/or falsified. In fact, I would argue that on these grounds the entire topic matter of this thread is somewhat unimportant; whether a conclusion in Science is inductively or deductively derived will have no bearing on how well said conclusion will conform to reality.
Finally, the desire to avoid what you feel are 'derived from nothing' axioms is misplaced. Whether our argument takes an inductive or deductive form, these parts will be always present, and will bear down always on our conclusion. The degree to which they weigh down our conclusion with improbability will be related to the degree to which we may find support for these things either in the fundamental frameworks of the scientific method itself or in the empirical world. An attempt to avoid this is just an attempt to avoid a necessary consequence of the nature of reality and logical thought.
Now, having said all that, if you still have something to say that is in someway contrary to my argument, then you are welcomed to lay out your objections in a reasoned straight-forward manner such that they may be understood and addressed.
I look forward to hearing what you have to say.
Jon

Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 545 by Straggler, posted 11-23-2010 7:40 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 559 by Straggler, posted 11-24-2010 2:46 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 558 of 744 (593136)
11-24-2010 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 554 by Stephen Push
11-24-2010 6:53 AM


Re: Nwr: "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves"
Do you believe that some method other than inductive reasoning provides a basis for predicting unobserved phenomena? If so, what method?
One may pull something from one's ass. This has worked particularly well for me in the past. Yes, you end up with a lot of shit; but you do get a gem every once and a while.
Jon

Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 554 by Stephen Push, posted 11-24-2010 6:53 AM Stephen Push has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 561 by Straggler, posted 11-24-2010 3:04 PM Jon has replied

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


Message 559 of 744 (593138)
11-24-2010 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 557 by Jon
11-24-2010 2:05 PM


Re: Reapproaching Things
Jon writes:
There is, of course, no such thing as 'induction'. All conclusions are arrived at deductively. Message 178
Do you still stand by this claim?
You started this entire conversation with the assertion that All conclusions are arrived at deductively. You then went on to (repeatedly) assert that the starting point for these deductions are axioms which are (I quote) derived from nothing.
To be derived from nothing is functionally equivalent to being derived from blind random guesses. This is not how scientific conclusions are derived. Nor is it how any of the example axioms you have provided (e.g. regarding unobserved phenomena) were arrived at either.
This has been demonstrated to you both by myself and (more successfully) Modulous.
Jon writes:
Now, having said all that, if you still have something to say that is in someway contrary to my argument, then you are welcomed to lay out your objections in a reasoned straight-forward manner such that they may be understood and addressed.
Science doesn't start from "axioms" that are "derived from nothing".
Do you dispute this?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 557 by Jon, posted 11-24-2010 2:05 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 562 by Jon, posted 11-24-2010 3:26 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 560 of 744 (593141)
11-24-2010 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 550 by nwr
11-23-2010 6:35 PM


Re: Nwr: "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves"
Nwr writes:
Straggler writes:
So in response to a specific question you simply cite a broad philosophical position and then it turns out you don't really agree with most of that either?
I gave a more detailed position in an earlier post. I don't recall that you have commented on it.
I have honestly never seen you give a detailed position on anything. I don't even think you are capable of it.
But if you provide a link to the specific post in which you give this once-in-a-lifetime rarity I will of course be delighted to comment. The novelty factor alone will make this worthwhile.
And while you are at it perhaps you could spell out (even if in a quote from a previous post) your answer to the question that you seem unable to give a straight answer to:
Is science able to make reliable and accurate (albeit tentative) conclusions about the future behaviour of natural phenomena?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 550 by nwr, posted 11-23-2010 6:35 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 568 by nwr, posted 11-24-2010 6:06 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 561 of 744 (593142)
11-24-2010 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 558 by Jon
11-24-2010 2:14 PM


Re: Nwr: "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves"
Jon writes:
StevieP writes:
Do you believe that some method other than inductive reasoning provides a basis for predicting unobserved phenomena? If so, what method?
One may pull something from one's ass. This has worked particularly well for me in the past. Yes, you end up with a lot of shit; but you do get a gem every once and a while.
Whilst your arguments in this thread (and numerous others) adequately demonstrate your ability and propensity for pulling things "from one's ass" can you give a specific example of where this led to a successful outcome? (a "gem" in your parlance).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 558 by Jon, posted 11-24-2010 2:14 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 579 by Jon, posted 11-25-2010 2:25 AM Straggler has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 562 of 744 (593147)
11-24-2010 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 559 by Straggler
11-24-2010 2:46 PM


Re: Reapproaching Things
Science doesn't start from "axioms" that are "derived from nothing".
Do you dispute this?
It is irrelevant.
Jon writes:
There is, of course, no such thing as 'induction'. All conclusions are arrived at deductively. Message 178
Do you still stand by this claim?
I think you've completely missed the point about what I was saying. The deductive aspects are always there, even if relabeled.
To be derived from nothing is functionally equivalent to being derived from blind random guesses. This is not how scientific conclusions are derived. Nor is it how any of the example axioms you have provided (e.g. regarding unobserved phenomena) were arrived at either.
Nor is it how any of the example axioms you have provided (e.g. regarding unobserved phenomena) were arrived at either.
Again, this isn't relevant.
You have yet to show a difference between axioms derived from nothing and premises derived from something that is relevant to Science. Science may use induction, but does it really matter? At the end of the day, all must still be tested.
Jon

Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 559 by Straggler, posted 11-24-2010 2:46 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 563 by Straggler, posted 11-24-2010 3:42 PM Jon has replied

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


Message 563 of 744 (593150)
11-24-2010 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 562 by Jon
11-24-2010 3:26 PM


Get Real
Jon writes:
You have yet to show a difference between axioms derived from nothing and premises derived from something that is relevant to Science.
Well the first are functionally equivalent to blind random guesses and the second are derived from expereience and are evidentially superior. Which part of that are you disputing?
Jon writes:
The deductive aspects are always there, even if relabeled.
So now you are equivocating on your initial claim that "There is, of course, no such thing as 'induction'. All conclusions are arrived at deductively" Message 178
Jon writes:
At the end of the day, all must still be tested.
Indeed. But how do we choose what to test? The LHC wasn't built on a whim was it? Jon says "Let there be the Higgs Boson" therefore we will spend billions on researching Jon's "derived from nothing" axiom.
Get real.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 562 by Jon, posted 11-24-2010 3:26 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 580 by Jon, posted 11-25-2010 2:32 AM Straggler has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 564 of 744 (593162)
11-24-2010 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 553 by Panda
11-23-2010 8:04 PM


Re: Universal Principles
Panda writes:
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.
Sigh!
Are we still on that bullshit. The reply you gave to that "by definition" claim did not support the claim. Moreover, the claim is obviously false, as shown in the last line of Message 502.
Panda writes:
You asked where my definition came from.
I gave several links.
Giving several links is worthless. 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. The Pythagorus theorem is still a general principle that is derived by deductive reasoning.
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.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 553 by Panda, posted 11-23-2010 8:04 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 577 by Panda, posted 11-24-2010 7:17 PM nwr has replied
 Message 620 by Modulous, posted 11-25-2010 8:32 PM nwr has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 565 of 744 (593163)
11-24-2010 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 554 by Stephen Push
11-24-2010 6:53 AM


Re: Nwr: "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves"
Stephen Push writes:
Do you believe that some method other than inductive reasoning provides a basis for predicting unobserved phenomena?
People make predictions using a Ouja board. You can, of course, make better predictions with science, but that does not require induction.
Here is the scoreboard thus far, as best I can tell:
Actual evidence of induction being used by science: zero.
Valid arguments supporting induction: zero.
Invalid arguments supporting induction: many - I didn't try counting them.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 554 by Stephen Push, posted 11-24-2010 6:53 AM Stephen Push has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 567 by Straggler, posted 11-24-2010 6:03 PM nwr has replied
 Message 578 by Stephen Push, posted 11-24-2010 10:12 PM nwr has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 566 of 744 (593164)
11-24-2010 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 556 by Straggler
11-24-2010 12:31 PM


Re: Nwr: "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves"
Straggler writes:
You have changed the question and skirted around it continuously. But you have never answered it.
What you presumably mean, is that I have never answered it to your satisfaction. However, I have answered it.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 556 by Straggler, posted 11-24-2010 12:31 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 569 by Straggler, posted 11-24-2010 6:09 PM nwr has replied

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


Message 567 of 744 (593165)
11-24-2010 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 565 by nwr
11-24-2010 5:58 PM


Re: Nwr: "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves"
Astrologists make predictions. So do wichdoctors. In fact anyone can make predictions. What is your point?
Nwr writes:
You can, of course, make better predictions with science, but that does not require induction.
What do you mean by "better" and how do you explain the ability of science to make "better" predictions?
Is science able to make reliable and accurate (albeit tentative) conclusions about the future behaviour of natural phenomena?
Nwr writes:
Actual evidence of induction being used by science: zero.
Ahem - Universal principles upon which the behaviour of my soon to be dropped pen can be scientifically derived.
Nwr writes:
Valid arguments supporting induction: zero.
Invalid arguments supporting induction: many - I didn't try counting them.
Define "valid" and "invalid".
Be specific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 565 by nwr, posted 11-24-2010 5:58 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 571 by nwr, posted 11-24-2010 6:20 PM Straggler has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 568 of 744 (593166)
11-24-2010 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 560 by Straggler
11-24-2010 2:59 PM


Re: Nwr: "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves"
Straggler writes:
But if you provide a link to the specific post
I have honestly never seen you give a detailed position on anything. I don't even think you are capable of it.
But if you provide a link to the specific post in which you give this once-in-a-lifetime rarity I will of course be delighted to comment.

Message 480
Edited by nwr, : correct wrong quote

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 560 by Straggler, posted 11-24-2010 2:59 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 570 by Straggler, posted 11-24-2010 6:17 PM nwr has replied

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


Message 569 of 744 (593167)
11-24-2010 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 566 by nwr
11-24-2010 6:01 PM


Re: Nwr: "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves"
Where? Link to the answer to the question asked.
Why can you not even quote, and link to, the answer you say you have given?
I will tell you why - Because you cannot reconcile the fact that genuinely scientific conclusions are made regarding as yet unobserved specific instances of natural phenomena without the inductive conclusion that nature will behave as thus far observed being included.
Show us otherwise. I challenge you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 566 by nwr, posted 11-24-2010 6:01 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 572 by nwr, posted 11-24-2010 6:26 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 570 of 744 (593168)
11-24-2010 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 568 by nwr
11-24-2010 6:06 PM


Re: Nwr: "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves"
So where in this post can I find your answer to the question:
Is science able to make reliable and accurate (albeit tentative) conclusions about the future behaviour of natural phenomena?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 568 by nwr, posted 11-24-2010 6:06 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 573 by nwr, posted 11-24-2010 6:29 PM Straggler 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