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: dorayme on 15 Dec 2009 19:36 In article <b73f9030-4f84-4dcc-808d-24326d9a91d7(a)x15g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 15, 3:47 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: .... > > 2. For me, induction is a very simple thing, it is the argument form: > > > > X has happened N number of times in circumstance C therefore next time C > > happens, X will happen. A really really rotten argument form as Hume > > pointed out and as Bertrand Russell's chicken did not find out! <g> > > Not from a scientific point of view. Induction involves the induction > of a generalized rule that applies not only to the observed > circumstances but to other circumstances as well. This is where its > power comes from. > Is this saying something different about the form of the argument? Whether it is good or bad, we may dispute. But for now, are you at least agreeing with me about the form, what we are going to label induction. Your below comments rather make this bit unclear. > As an example, it was noted that all objects near the surface of the > Earth fall with an acceleration that is about 10 m/s/s. It was also > noted that the Moon (which is not near the surface of the Earth) falls > with an acceleration that is about 3600 times smaller. It was also > noted that the Moon is about 60 times further away from the center of > the Earth than objects near the surface of the Earth. It was also > noted that for every force that object A exerts on B, there is an > equal and opposite force that B exerts on A. From this there was a > remarkable *induction* -- NOT a deduction -- that the force that is > responsible for acceleration of both the Moon and of objects near the > surface of the Earth follows the general rule: F = GMm/r^2. > > Now this is a powerful induction, because it applies to objects other > than the ones near the surface of the Earth and at the Moon's > distance. It in fact applies to objects falling toward bodies other > than the Earth. > I have little idea what *logic* is involved here, there are a whole lot of disparate things and someone has simply thought of a law or set of laws that connect and explain them all. All the testing of this hypothesis fails to break the hypothesis. This does not at all look like any *form* of induction at all. > It is the induction of a *general* rule from particulars How is it induced in a logical sense from the particulars. Answer is it is not. Humans are caused to think the general rule, they can think of competing ones sometimes, from a survey of particulars. This is not a logical process. Testing is logical, saying this explanation is the best we have at the moment given the data is logical. But there is nothing that is usefully called a logical induction. It is not good describing what goes on in science reasonably well as you do and tacking on the end: "That is deduction!" because I am not sure what exactly you are referring to. > that permits > the experimental test. Because THEN you can say, "If this rule is > right, then we should be able to predict the acceleration of each of > the moons of Jupiter." Notice this is more a deduction... > And if that experimental test turns out well, > then the confidence in the induction increases. > > > > > 3. You say that the method of induction "when used in conjunction with > > experimental evidence does seem to produce better results more quickly > > than another investigative approach in that arena" But notice how very > > vague this is. What counts as experimental *evidence*? What is the > > method of induction if it is not what I understand it to be? And, if it > > is what I understand it to be (see my 2 above), why is it at all > > valuable to observe that it has worked in the past? You would not > > observe and mention such if you did not think it was a *good* way of > > reasoning. In other words, you are not quite avoiding, as you imply, > > that it has an inherent superiority. > > > > -- > > dorayme -- dorayme
From: dorayme on 15 Dec 2009 20:39 In article <doraymeRidThis-FFD1F1.11364716122009(a)news.albasani.net>, dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > It is not good describing > what goes on in science reasonably well as you do and tacking on the > end: "That is deduction!" because I am not sure what exactly you are > referring to. oops...typo... that should read "It is no good describing what goes on in science reasonably well as you do and tacking on the end: "That is induction!" -- dorayme
From: John Stafford on 15 Dec 2009 21:51 Inductive reasoning is the weakest kind of argument in the light of Deductive Reasoning. However, we must look to its utility: for one, it keeps Deductive Reasoning honest, or as honest as it can be. One cannot exist without the other.
From: PD on 16 Dec 2009 09:55 On Dec 15, 6:36 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > In article > <b73f9030-4f84-4dcc-808d-24326d9a9...(a)x15g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, > > > > PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On Dec 15, 3:47 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > ... > > > 2. For me, induction is a very simple thing, it is the argument form: > > > > X has happened N number of times in circumstance C therefore next time C > > > happens, X will happen. A really really rotten argument form as Hume > > > pointed out and as Bertrand Russell's chicken did not find out! <g> > > > Not from a scientific point of view. Induction involves the induction > > of a generalized rule that applies not only to the observed > > circumstances but to other circumstances as well. This is where its > > power comes from. > > Is this saying something different about the form of the argument? > Whether it is good or bad, we may dispute. But for now, are you at least > agreeing with me about the form, what we are going to label induction. > Your below comments rather make this bit unclear. > > > > > As an example, it was noted that all objects near the surface of the > > Earth fall with an acceleration that is about 10 m/s/s. It was also > > noted that the Moon (which is not near the surface of the Earth) falls > > with an acceleration that is about 3600 times smaller. It was also > > noted that the Moon is about 60 times further away from the center of > > the Earth than objects near the surface of the Earth. It was also > > noted that for every force that object A exerts on B, there is an > > equal and opposite force that B exerts on A. From this there was a > > remarkable *induction* -- NOT a deduction -- that the force that is > > responsible for acceleration of both the Moon and of objects near the > > surface of the Earth follows the general rule: F = GMm/r^2. > > > Now this is a powerful induction, because it applies to objects other > > than the ones near the surface of the Earth and at the Moon's > > distance. It in fact applies to objects falling toward bodies other > > than the Earth. > > I have little idea what *logic* is involved here, there are a whole lot > of disparate things and someone has simply thought of a law or set of > laws that connect and explain them all. All the testing of this > hypothesis fails to break the hypothesis. This does not at all look like > any *form* of induction at all. > > > It is the induction of a *general* rule from particulars > > How is it induced in a logical sense from the particulars. The induction is the intuiting of a general rule from the particulars. In my mind this is what induction MEANS. It means more than just saying that a pattern of particulars will continue to exhibit that pattern. It is a *guess* of sorts, and this is what distinguishes it from being a *deduction* from the particulars, in the sense that a deduction would be a *necessary* consequence from the particulars. A guess is not a necessary consequence, which is the reason why the induced generality must then be tested, to see if the general rule does apply to other particulars. > Answer is it > is not. Humans are caused to think the general rule, they can think of > competing ones sometimes, from a survey of particulars. That's right. And that's why there are often competing scientific theories induced from the same set of particulars. Then what is done is to go in the reverse direction and *deduce* consequences of those competing theories to locate those places where they make different predictions about what will be observed about other particulars. It is those differences that are put to experimental test. To recap, from a common set of particulars, two different theories may be induced. The test of the induced theories is to deduce a prediction about a different set of particulars where that theory should also apply, and in particular it is useful to focus on those places where the two theories yield different predictions about a new particular. Then it is that particular that is set up in a controlled experiment or sought in an observational search, and this tests which of these two induced theories is more likely correct. > This is not a > logical process. Testing is logical, saying this explanation is the best > we have at the moment given the data is logical. But there is nothing > that is usefully called a logical induction. It is not good describing > what goes on in science reasonably well as you do and tacking on the > end: "That is deduction!" because I am not sure what exactly you are > referring to. > > > that permits > > the experimental test. Because THEN you can say, "If this rule is > > right, then we should be able to predict the acceleration of each of > > the moons of Jupiter." > > Notice this is more a deduction... Yes. Science does an induction, followed by a deduction, followed by a test. > > > > > And if that experimental test turns out well, > > then the confidence in the induction increases. > > > > 3. You say that the method of induction "when used in conjunction with > > > experimental evidence does seem to produce better results more quickly > > > than another investigative approach in that arena" But notice how very > > > vague this is. What counts as experimental *evidence*? What is the > > > method of induction if it is not what I understand it to be? And, if it > > > is what I understand it to be (see my 2 above), why is it at all > > > valuable to observe that it has worked in the past? You would not > > > observe and mention such if you did not think it was a *good* way of > > > reasoning. In other words, you are not quite avoiding, as you imply, > > > that it has an inherent superiority. > > > > -- > > > dorayme > > -- > dorayme
From: John Stafford on 16 Dec 2009 11:23
I look at inductive logic as similar to induced labor - it is forced logic. |