Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Do waves move faster in a liquid with a higher density?
Next: ...100 MW of Space Solar Power ...per single launch!
From: M Purcell on 6 Jan 2010 16:41 On Jan 6, 11:48 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 6, 10:42 am, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 6, 7:47 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 5, 4:31 pm, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > This make so much more sense than just cussing and if you stopped > > > > using the Kantian label you would sound almost sane. I believe PD's > > > > point was that an axiomatic certainty does not exist in physics. > > > > Although increasing entropy and the consistancy of the speed of light > > > > come close, they must be verified and reverified by observation. In > > > > science, every "certainty" is subject to repeated verification. > > > > Your examples are cases of INFERRED statements. They are indeed > > > postulates, but they are far from certain. As you say, they are only > > > provisionally accepted as long as their consequents are consistent > > > with experimental observation. > > > Indeed, they are inferred from observations with the assumption our > > observations may not be valid. > > Well, they are general rules that are inferred from a known set of > examples which may not be complete. > The best example here is the principle of relativity, which was one of > Einstein's postulates. It was known to hold for Newtonian mechanics in > an obvious way, but it was not obviously true for the laws of > electrodynamics. Einstein asked the question, "But what if the > principle of relativity IS true for ALL laws of physics? What would be > the implications of that?" Thus the principle of relativity was an > inferred general rule, which led to the deduction of testable > consequences, which in fact turned out to match measurement, lending > credence to the inferred postulate. Yes, testable conclusions can be deduced from observations. > > But this requirement of repeated > > verification seems to indicate inductive reasoning. > > > > As another example, Einstein firmly believed in the principle of > > > locality, which is why he had such great difficulty with quantum > > > mechanics. Jon Bell codified that belief into a firm prediction as a > > > means to test it, and Alain Aspect did the experimental test which > > > showed that Einstein's beloved postulate, the principle of locality, > > > was simply wrong. > > > Which goes to show that nobody is perfect and quantum mechanical > > concepts such as wave-particle duality are very unintuitive. > > Well, I wouldn't say it quite that way. Quantum mechanics isn't all > that unintuitive (at least to those who have practice with it). But > Einstein just had a very strong hunch that the principle of locality > was a good rule of nature --- he arrived at that conclusion by some > process of induction. So Einstein could put his finger on where the > conflict was between his inductions and quantum mechanics. It just > turned out in this case that Einstein's induction was wrong. Wave-particle duality is not commonly experienced.
From: PD on 6 Jan 2010 17:56 On Jan 6, 3:41 pm, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Jan 6, 11:48 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Which goes to show that nobody is perfect and quantum mechanical > > > concepts such as wave-particle duality are very unintuitive. > > > Well, I wouldn't say it quite that way. Quantum mechanics isn't all > > that unintuitive (at least to those who have practice with it). But > > Einstein just had a very strong hunch that the principle of locality > > was a good rule of nature --- he arrived at that conclusion by some > > process of induction. So Einstein could put his finger on where the > > conflict was between his inductions and quantum mechanics. It just > > turned out in this case that Einstein's induction was wrong. > > Wave-particle duality is not commonly experienced. Maybe you don't notice the photosensor on the conveyor belt at the grocery store checkout, which relies on it. :) Intuition can be broader than what is commonly afforded by experience through unaugmented senses. Humans are good at augmenting the senses, and different groups of people have lots of common experience using different tools to augment those senses. Physicists are quite comfortable and intuitively familiar with those phenomena that they observe through their particular choice of augmentation tools. Biologists use others. Geologists use others.
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 7 Jan 2010 00:52 On Jan 6, 9:38 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.net> wrote: > Methinks PD is a mathematician in which axiomatic certainty can occur. Axioms do not reside in mathematicians, they reside in systems.
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 7 Jan 2010 01:08 On Jan 7, 8:41 am, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > ... testable conclusions can be deduced from observations. > Don't give an example, it might make it too clear or else show it to be quite confused.
From: Michael Gordge on 7 Jan 2010 03:17
On Jan 7, 2:43 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Ah, so I see the problem. You *assert* that anything that is certain > must be derived from sensory evidence. Nope, you are a liar, I said, "certainty (as against an axiom) required the non-contradictory identification and integration of evidence, of sensory evidence" > And that therefore "axiomatic > certainty" is, by virtue of your assertion, a contradiction in terms. Nope by YOUR definition of axiom being something accepted without any evidence. > OK, let's take an example. Let's use Euclid's Fifth Postulate. Is that > certain or not? What is the sensory evidence? Shrug, if its not matter then it doesn't matter. MG |