tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post6648968615631048578..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: The very foundations of scienceUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-52104509370401794762009-04-20T04:56:00.000-04:002009-04-20T04:56:00.000-04:00As for deduction, Massimo writes:
>> actual...As for deduction, Massimo writes:<br /><br />>> actually deduction is provable in the sense that the wrong deduction leads to a logical contradiction, which can be shown in formal symbolic logic.<<<br /><br />That's right, but you still need deduction in order to "deduce" that wrong deductions lead to contradictions.<br /><br />I think deduction is one of the irreducibilities we just have to accept - just as induction. If every notion were reducible, we'd end up with an infinity of notions, with a dust of ideas nobody could work with.Dominic van der Zypenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06093058245682848158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-13644259791033544352009-04-17T09:45:00.000-04:002009-04-17T09:45:00.000-04:00I've come to this discussion rather late, but I'd ...I've come to this discussion rather late, but I'd like to add my thoughts. Incidentally, I thought of the problem of induction for myself, a few months ago, and was a little disappointed to discover subsequently that it was old hat to philosophers. ;)<br /><br />As I see it, yes, it's true that induction cannot be rationally justified. But, apart from that, there is no reason or motivation to give it up. Nor is there any alternative on the table. To give up induction is to give up learning from experience. And I doubt we are capable of doing that, even if we wanted to.<br /><br />(Maybe the lack of an available alternative could be taken as constituting a rational justification for induction. But that would only push the problem back a bit. There cannot be a rational justification for rational thinking itself.)<br /><br />This is not to say that our use of induction is arbitrary. Our induction-based understanding of the world explains why induction is effective and why we have evolved to use it.Richard Weinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18095903892283146064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-81227044684431902052009-03-23T18:23:00.000-04:002009-03-23T18:23:00.000-04:00I have always taken the pragmatists view since fir...I have always taken the pragmatists view since first reading of Hume's argument. It may be true from a philosophical perspective that there is tenuous rational for the veracity of induction but as David B. Ellis clearly pointed out, if induction were to be wrong, we all wouldn't survive the break. So accepting it as a fact of our existence in this Universe today, is the best we can do. In mathematics the idea of self derived entities is powerful and used all the time to derive proofs, some of which have been the most powerful in mathematical theory. One obvious example is the symmetry of the integral of the exponential function being an exponential function. Mathematicians don't look at this fact and claim that integration of the function is "circular", it just is and the calculations based on its truth have been theoretically and pragmatically useful. Induction should be considered to be a true and useful artifact of living in a Universe of events of quantized energy mediation. <BR/><BR/>At least that is how this Engineer tends to look at it. ;)David Saintlothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08003376317566794366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-16246474667529363272009-03-19T18:19:00.000-04:002009-03-19T18:19:00.000-04:00No one has mentioned the "black swan" example of t...No one has mentioned the "black swan" example of the failure of induction at a low level. If one lived in Britain and never left, one might be justified in believing that "all swans are white", a locally valid induction.<BR/><BR/>But after travelling the world and seeing black swans, the error would be easily seen.<BR/><BR/>A new induction would be created for better accuracy: "all swans are either black or white". Induction might not be completely correct, but it can become asymptotic to valid knowledge of the physical universe. Hume's reasoning that it might not be true tomorrow is not really a show stopper for empiricism, which would endeavor to determine why it became "not true". I don't think Hume meant that the universe might stop; I think he meant the issue with the black swans.<BR/><BR/>This points out another limitation of science that rarely is mentioned: science produces not truth, but factoids that are only contingently valid, until new information causes a correction to be understood to be required. <BR/><BR/>Also empirical science voluntarily restricts its purvue to observable, measurable, material entities. <BR/><BR/>This does not address the possibility or probability of non-material entities; Philosophical Materialism makes the error of declaring - without material evidence - that non-material entities do not exist. But Philosophical Materialism is a philosophy, not an empirical science.<BR/><BR/>Philosphies tend to be purely deductive, without the capability of inductive observation for back-up. This can result in some generic errors that don't really contradict empiricism, but are internally contradictory or non-coherent.<BR/><BR/>For example starting with an erroneous First Principle leads inexorably to false conclusions. First Principles are known to be true by intuitive inspection; the non-contradiction principle is an example. But if I declare there to be no non-material existences, this is not generally intuitive, and there are reasons for it not to be. For example, the infamous "meme" is not physical, not measurable in x,y,z, dimensions, has no mass, no energy, no reflectivity, no density, no other material characteristics. It is non-material. To argue that it cannot exist is counter-intuitive; thus "no non-material existence" cannot be a First Principle from which deductions can rationally be made.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14860850768269357636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-77933478197383738732009-03-13T21:47:00.000-04:002009-03-13T21:47:00.000-04:00Well, Chris, at least you're still on top of w...Well, Chris, at least you're still on top of whats going on in the world and MN. <BR/><BR/>There use to be a lot of predictability in the social climate (true tolerance & patience) especially at the small town level. Now it anyone's guess why Minnesota just got tired of being "good".<BR/><BR/>Well, maybe I know in part... <BR/><BR/>On a trip to Isrl recently, our guide mentions some matters discussed in OT books of the law (which few people seem to understand) i.e. no mixing of fabrics, no mixing of dairy and meat, etc. She explained to us that this alludes to God's way of laying down the concept or precept of "NO MIXING", especially when the Hebrews of various times and places were often surrounded by Greeks and Romans who 'just wanted to have it their OWN way'.<BR/><BR/>And that's where most of Minnesota is at I think. Flat out tired of being good...just wants to have things (collectively) its own WAY.<BR/><BR/>There is no other explanation of how more than 5 people would ever vote for Franken or Ventura. Ventura is the craziest most egotistical person... Franken, otoh, is the biggest mocker and slanderer I've seen anywhere.... <BR/><BR/>I am shocked at "US" for tolerating any of that. I guess there is such a thing as being so tolerant one becomes absolutely stupid...calianahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06702074438747578526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-51649655796269547982009-03-13T19:55:00.000-04:002009-03-13T19:55:00.000-04:00caliana said, "And welcome fellow Minnesotan. I us...caliana said, <BR/>"And welcome fellow Minnesotan. I use to think that Minnesota had some of the brainiest people in the world there until the last few political cycles.... "<BR/><BR/>Oh whatever, Governor Jesse Ventura was the best thing that ever happened to this state. And I am proud of our football team who made it to 4 Superbowl's and still didn't win one, and I am especially proud of them for their decision to get caught doing horrible things on their yacht, Go Vikings Go! The only thing I don't like was their decision to make the blueberry muffin Minnesota's state muffin. Raisin oatmeal muffins are so much better.<BR/><BR/>(all of this is sarcasm to the highest degree)Chris Geiserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04749511745209558440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-26325760566288017502009-03-13T18:58:00.000-04:002009-03-13T18:58:00.000-04:00Chris: Darwin had a major in Theology in College a...Chris: Darwin had a major in Theology in College and even he was susceptible to bad ideas... Evolution."<BR/><BR/>Darwin, for all his supposed training in theology, had no concept of the value and worth of his own soul. And that fundamental issue alone made him susceptible to every other lie that came after that. A mighty precarious place to be if you ask me. <BR/><BR/>And welcome fellow Minnesotan. I use to think that Minnesota had some of the brainiest people in the world there until the last few political cycles....calianahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06702074438747578526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-40936719107468095912009-03-13T18:30:00.000-04:002009-03-13T18:30:00.000-04:00Chris: "Yeah I agree. Darwin had a major in Theolo...Chris: "Yeah I agree. Darwin had a major in Theology in College and even he was susceptible to bad ideas... Evolution."<BR/><BR/>Yes, and tho C. Darwin and Abe Lincoln were born on the same day, Abe believed and advanced the idea that ALL MEN were 'CREATED' EQUAL while Darwin believed that men were neither CREATED nor EQUAL.<BR/><BR/>And who was it that asked what "color" the sky is on your planet??? <BR/><BR/><BR/>"David B. Ellis said, "Because someone comes up with some good ideas doesn't mean that they weren't also susceptible to bad ones."calianahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06702074438747578526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-78139135011923327032009-03-11T08:04:00.000-04:002009-03-11T08:04:00.000-04:00I'll definetely watch the movie.Anyway I see your ...I'll definetely watch the movie.<BR/><BR/>Anyway I see your point. But then, I insist, how do we distinguish a world of inductive unreliability (say with miracles every so often) from one about which we lack knowledge?<BR/><BR/>Do you mean that, since the former is unsurvibable, the fact that we are alive is a proof? It seems that even the most simple organism relies on the regularity of natural laws. Then, could an example be a universe with different fundamental physics, one where we could not survive nor observe?<BR/><BR/>Which makes me wonder whether inductive reasoning is a purely subjective category or whether it also implies something about the *fabric of the world,... is the anthropic principle anywhere here?<BR/><BR/>As this gets terribly confusing I remember Hume's words:<BR/><BR/>"A true sceptic will be diffident of his philosophical doubts as well as of his philosophical convictions; and will never refuse any innocent satisfaction, which offers itself, upon account of either of them". I therefore wish Massimo will keep bringing us many more innocent satisfactions.Winstanleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09772958666816996924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-55471465472784782142009-03-10T18:11:00.000-04:002009-03-10T18:11:00.000-04:00Nick,actually Hume would have another problem with...Nick,<BR/><BR/>actually Hume would have another problem with the logical interpretation of probability: he wouldn't like the use of the idea of "causation," which he found highly suspicious.<BR/><BR/>Okasha does get into that, in the following chapter of his book.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-84187694263160126022009-03-10T15:35:00.000-04:002009-03-10T15:35:00.000-04:00In it, the world does change in unpredictable ways...<B><BR/>In it, the world does change in unpredictable ways (I won't tell you why, in case you'd like to watch it), and the plot is an exploration of what happens when induction is no longer reliable.<BR/></B><BR/><BR/>That's not an example of a world with general inductive unreliability. Induction still works quite well in a great many respects (all, in fact, when the missing pieces of information about what is happening in the environment they inhabit are available).<BR/><BR/>I don't really see that as an example of inductive unreliability but a simple lack of knowledge of vital information.<BR/><BR/>Great movie though.David B. Ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09468191085576922813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-78550870787800511352009-03-10T15:31:00.000-04:002009-03-10T15:31:00.000-04:00If we imagine living in a world where induction is...<B><BR/>If we imagine living in a world where induction is unreliable, how would we find out this but by induction?<BR/></B><BR/><BR/>It would be largely irrelevent since a world where induction wasn't reliable to any significant degree would almost certainly not be survivable.David B. Ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09468191085576922813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-49708684692947191032009-03-10T15:28:00.000-04:002009-03-10T15:28:00.000-04:00Lastly, one can adopt what Okasha calls the logica...<B>Lastly, one can adopt what Okasha calls the logical interpretation of probabilities, according to which there is a probability X that an event will occur means that we have objective reasons to believe (or not) that X will occur (for instance, because we understand the physics of the solar system, the mechanics of cars, or the physics of coin flipping). This doesn’t mean that we will always be correct, but it does offer a promising way out of Hume’s dilemma, since it seems to ground our judgments on a more solid foundation</B><BR/><BR/>I have to admit: I have no idea what this "solution" amounts to. Hume would surely say that to "understand" the solar system or the physics of coin flipping requires (as you've already suggested) faith in the validity of one's prior inductive judgments, <I>and</I> faith in what he calls the the Uniformity of Nature: the idea that the future will resemble the past.Vanitashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03190524739107446297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-66044905326952795292009-03-10T09:36:00.000-04:002009-03-10T09:36:00.000-04:00Aren't we talking here about Bayesian induction? S...Aren't we talking here about Bayesian induction? Start with a prior (subjective) estimate of probability and refine according to experimental observations.<BR/><BR/>I start off with a hypothesis that the laws of physics are constant (50 % probability of being true by subjective estimate). Repeatedly observe that they act in accordance with the hypothesis, and so revise my probability estimate upwards.<BR/><BR/>It might not meet philosophical standards, but it's how science works.Epiphenomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05420404206189437710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-42812676514657417802009-03-10T09:03:00.000-04:002009-03-10T09:03:00.000-04:00Winstanley,actually, one can imagine a world like ...Winstanley,<BR/><BR/>actually, one can imagine a world like the one suggested by David. Take a look at the movie "Dark City" with William Hurt (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118929/). In it, the world does change in unpredictable ways (I won't tell you why, in case you'd like to watch it), and the plot is an exploration of what happens when induction is no longer reliable.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-30675706000639250982009-03-10T06:54:00.000-04:002009-03-10T06:54:00.000-04:00DavidIf we imagine living in a world where inducti...David<BR/>If we imagine living in a world where induction is unreliable, how would we find out this but by induction?<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that we cannot escape question begging precisely because it looks like it is instinctive*, thus inseparable from us.<BR/><BR/>The only way we could rationaly justify induction would be if we imagined an alternative *strategy* for going about without falling into cliffs. I fail to see how a world inhabited by angels and gods, who see matters of fact as deductively necessary, would look like. In other words, induction cannot be the best bet if it is the only one.<BR/><BR/>All we could rationaly justify is our preference for good over bad induction, science over myth: Bad induction kills you!<BR/><BR/>Now the confusion, whether deduction is on firm grounds or not (?), well: deduction IS the ground. That's why it tells you absolutely nothing about the world.Winstanleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09772958666816996924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-79435604654358109612009-03-09T23:17:00.000-04:002009-03-09T23:17:00.000-04:00Thomas Palm wrote:The law of induction is an obser...Thomas Palm wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>The law of induction is an observation about how our universe works ... </I><BR/><BR/>Some aspects of our universe, e.g. physics and chemistry, do seem to be very regular. But quantum physics adds a curiously irregular twist to this.<BR/><BR/>Other aspects of our universe seem quite irregular, e.g. the spots on leopards. Yet (I understand) regularity lurks here. Likewise (I understand) regularity lurks in the apparently chaotic growth of plant leaves.<BR/><BR/>Regularity and simplicity seem to go together, and it sometimes takes very little complexity to obscure a strong regularity.<BR/><BR/>Astronomy seems to me a good example of the interplay of regularity and irregularity. The ancients observed clear patterns in the movements of celestial bodies, and yet there were disturbing irregularities. It took thousands of years and more than few geniuses to work things out (and not without some opposition from "heavenly" bodies).<BR/> <BR/>I think induction is the basic tool of science, but to be useful it has to be applied carefully. Ultimately, inductive inference requires a model, whether it is explicit or implicit. But here's the rub: the model itself can only be justified based on past evidence. For a simple, apparently endlessly repeating pattern (e.g. the day follows the night), we can use the model that the probability that the <I>i</I>-th event follows the pattern is <I>w</I> for all <I>i</I>. Then after observing <I>k</I> such confirmatory events, where <I>k</I> is large, we have strong evidence that the pattern always holds, i.e. that <I>w</I>=1, <I>provided the model is true</I>. (Furthermore, we can use statistical methods to quantify this evidence.) If the model is not true, and the probabilities <I>w</I>1, <I>w</I>2, ... vary in some unknown way, then we may be quite wrong. Still, the regularity we have observed is so striking in its simplicity that our simple model is very attractive. <BR/><BR/>Our modern understanding of astrophysics leads us to believe that there will eventually come a time when the day no longer follows the night. Still, the inductive inference has served us well.<BR/><BR/>A far more complex example: Newtonian mechanics works very well for objects within a few orders of magnitude of our size, and traveling at modest speeds. The inductive inferences that provided the foundation for Newton's system were extremely valuable. But we now know that beyond the realm of familiar sizes and speeds, these inferences prove inadequate. <BR/><BR/>Thomas Palm continued:<BR/><BR/><I>I suppose you could try the anthropic principle and note that with no regularity life could almost certainly not evolve and intelligence would be pointless, so the fact that we are here shows that induction must be true.</I><BR/><BR/>I think this is an appealing argument. But I don't think it's that induction is "true". Rather, it's that there is some regularity in our universe. There is also irregularity. Consider the weather, which is both regular and irregular. We tend to think that the irregularity is simply due to extreme complexity. But, as I noted above, quantum physics puts a curious random element into the picture.Nick Barrowmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11224940659269649220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-74556258208701134672009-03-09T21:03:00.000-04:002009-03-09T21:03:00.000-04:00I read the Philosophy of Science book as part of a...I read the Philosophy of Science book as part of an introductory psychology course. I must say that it is quite excellent.<BR/><BR/>There's also a "very short introduction" book about evolution, which I recommend as well.OliFlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06787203763348175196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-27743265314856975562009-03-09T16:55:00.000-04:002009-03-09T16:55:00.000-04:00but the problem is that if in fact the regularity ...<B><BR/>but the problem is that if in fact the regularity of the universe is not stable, then probability isn't stable, either. You can't use the past to make predictions about the future is the nature of regularities is up for grabs...<BR/></B><BR/><BR/>I consider this the weakest of the three reasons I proposed for employing induction. But the other two seem more than adequate so I can live with that.David B. Ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09468191085576922813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-4747124446208336692009-03-09T16:47:00.000-04:002009-03-09T16:47:00.000-04:00Yeah I agree. Darwin had a major in Theology in Co...<B><BR/>Yeah I agree. Darwin had a major in Theology in College and even he was susceptible to bad ideas... Evolution.<BR/></B><BR/><BR/>Hi. The sky is (usually) blue on my planet.<BR/><BR/>What color is it on yours?David B. Ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09468191085576922813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-79304043105408579882009-03-09T16:05:00.000-04:002009-03-09T16:05:00.000-04:00Massimo,The problem w/ claiming that deduction is ...Massimo,<BR/><BR/>The problem w/ claiming that deduction is on firm ground because if you make mistakes in deductive logic you can derive contradictions is that, just as with induction, this presumes the truth of the very system you are trying to test. <BR/><BR/>If you don't believe that given x, and "If x, then y" you can conclude "y" what would convince you of this fact? How is "not-(both x and not-x)" more convincing than that? <BR/><BR/>I suppose it is true that once one accepts some formal system, and the rules of that system, and commits to rule-following, deduction works, but the question remains how & why one would do any of those things? <BR/><BR/>Here I am with Martin Cothran -- though tempered with a bit of Wittgenstein. There is nothing "foundational" for induction (or deduction for that matter) to rest on. Rather, there are practices that make sense in the context of our lives. What it *means* to be rational is to be able to give reasons *at the appropriate level*. If you ask "why is it rational to believe that the future will be like the past (with respect to the behavior of the world)" I think you are asking a question at the wrong level, and Martin's reply -- believing that is part of what it *means* to be rational -- is the right way to go.<BR/><BR/>BTW: David, nice try re: "For example, if the order of the universe is to fundamentally fail at some point such that induction cannot be relied on it must occur at some particular moment X. What are the odds that any particular moment is the moment that inductive unreliability begins. About one in infinity?" but the problem is that if in fact the regularity of the universe is not stable, then probability isn't stable, either. You can't use the past to make predictions about the future is the nature of regularities is up for grabs...<BR/><BR/>I actually like Thomas' suggestion:<BR/>"I suppose you could try the anthropic principle and note that with no regularity life could almost certainly not evolve and intelligence would be pointless, so the fact that we are here shows that induction must be true." You at least show it must have worked in the past. You can then note that if it were to fail, the very meaning of rationality, etc., would fail with it (as well as any chance of survivability, learnability, etc.) so rationality presupposes the continuation of extant order.<BR/><BR/>Fun stuff!<BR/><BR/><BR/>jkJonathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11364316598293820961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-3754466743836997542009-03-09T15:28:00.000-04:002009-03-09T15:28:00.000-04:00David B. Ellis said, "Because someone comes up wit...David B. Ellis said, "Because someone comes up with some good ideas doesn't mean that they weren't also susceptible to bad ones."<BR/><BR/>Yeah I agree. Darwin had a major in Theology in College and even he was susceptible to bad ideas... Evolution.Chris Geiserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04749511745209558440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-34622791632351956372009-03-09T15:11:00.000-04:002009-03-09T15:11:00.000-04:00God makes the scientific Laws and Moral Laws, if o...<B><BR/>God makes the scientific Laws and Moral Laws, if one breaks any of those Laws there are consequences.<BR/></B><BR/><BR/>How would one break a scientific law?<BR/><BR/>And, as to morality based on laws laid down by God, how do you propose to deal with the Euthyphro dilemma?<BR/><BR/><B><BR/>The top scientists who founded modern science were theists.<BR/></B><BR/><BR/>Yes. And Isaac Newton devoted an inordinate amount of time and effort to alchemy.<BR/><BR/>So what?<BR/><BR/>Because someone comes up with some good ideas doesn't mean that they weren't also susceptible to bad ones.David B. Ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09468191085576922813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-91000321072773736142009-03-09T13:35:00.000-04:002009-03-09T13:35:00.000-04:00"Anyway, Samir devotes quite a bit of space in cha..."Anyway, Samir devotes quite a bit of space in chapter 2 of his book to Hume’s problem of induction, which is fundamental to our understanding of how science -- indeed, reasoning in general -- works."<BR/><BR/>Science is knowledge not reason. The top scientists who founded modern science were theists. God's creation inspired them to study how his creation worked. All the Laws of creation were created by the Creator. Science is not meant to be immoral or separate from God. Science is good and it is fascinating and I loved science in high school, but it has been becoming less interesting to me since people have secularized it and separated it from knowledge and into a relative reasoning, which is not science at all. God makes the scientific Laws and Moral Laws, if one breaks any of those Laws there are consequences.Chris Geiserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04749511745209558440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-89802042576449347582009-03-09T13:16:00.000-04:002009-03-09T13:16:00.000-04:00Does Okasha ever address the Pragmatist answer to ...Does Okasha ever address the Pragmatist answer to the problem of induction? I capitalize the word 'Pragmatist' to indicate Peirce, Dewey, <I>et al</I> rather than David Ellis' informal (but excellent!) response to the problem of induction.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com