|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What we must accept if we accept evolution Part 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Induction is not valid. Fortunately, science does not require any such assumption. What? Are you sure you mean that. Induction plays a large role in science, that is why theories are tentative. As wiki says: All observed crows are blacktentative conclusion: all crows are black. Our crows are black theory can be falsified at any time by the observation of a non-black crow.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
You mean it's not valid AT ALL, or in this particular context, or what?
I mean "not valid at all." Of course, it depends on what you mean by "induction." However, what is usually described as induction is not valid at all. Induction is part of a pseudo-scientific theory that comes from philosophy. It has been falsified many times. However, philosophers who hold that falsificationism is correct still cling to induction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I normally see literalism as a synonym of creationism and fundamentalism, but you're right. The same goes for the identification of the serpent as Satan; it doesn't follow from a literal reading, but is instead added on. No, his identity is REVEALED, not "added on," revealed in the Book of Revelation:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Induction plays a large role in science, that is why theories are tentative.
It depends on what you mean by induction. As it is usually described, induction plays no role at all in science.
All observed crows are black
Are you (or is wiki) claiming that no albino crow has ever been observed? That would surely be surprising and worthy of investigation.
tentative conclusion: all crows are black.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I have to see how you answer Modulous then.
And I have to ask, so that leaves only deduction as a valid logical method? So you have to start with a theory you think up and then test it and that's the only valid method? But I would think induction could be a way to ARRIVE AT a theory that you could then test.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
I disagree nwr. I think Faith is right that induction can be a source of 'inspiration' for a hypothosis.
In fact, (I'm getting neck stuck out a bit here) I'd say there is a lot of induction in science. That is one reason for the continued testing. Crows are black; seen any other colors? Opps! our hypothosis is wrong. Let's rephrase*. The overwhelmingly common color for Crows is black. Crows of other colors are subject to sexual and natural selection that means they only appear as random mutations. Now we can test this hypothosis too. If our hypothosis holds up: So far ALL life forms on the planet share the same genetic base -- there was only one common ancestor to them all. I guess we could develop some deductive reasons why this had to be but I think we have concluded this based on induction and, so far, it holds up. ( * I can't help myself; ICR or AIG would in a similar situtation decide that the bird you found isn't a "true" crow. ) This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-04-2006 02:21 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Induction: The process of deriving general principles from particular facts or instances.
Whenever I let go of my pen, it falls.My pen will always fall when I let go of it This will be falsified if my pen doesn't fall at any time that I drop it. Did Darwin inspect every single organism to conclude that they are share a common ancestor? Have we inspected every organism today?
Are you (or is wiki) claiming that no albino crow has ever been observed? That would surely be surprising and worthy of investigation. Must you take it so literally? If I was to show you the classic: All red cars are fast, my car is red, therefore my car is fast syllogism you would say "Not all cars are red!" Of course, not all crows are black, it has been falsified already. That's science. Make a general statement based on what we know now, but say "observation x will falsify this theory". Science is always making inductions, constantly...and its perfectly valid. One can never know a certainty from induction. All inductive conclusions are tentative. As long as we are always aware that induction is flawed, and maintain no absolute certainties (ie tentativity), then induction is a valid way to come to tentative conclusions. This message has been edited by Modulous, Sat, 04-February-2006 07:31 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Induction: The process of deriving general principles from particular facts or instances.
I have started a new topic at Induction and Science. Let's move this discussion there, to avoid derailing this current thread. Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
What is questionable about that? We are near the end of the second thread on this topic, and you still haven't explained it. I have explained it on various occasions. Let us examine the two senses of the word "because." One can mean it in a causal sense, or one can mean it in a logical sense (ground/consequent). He died of cancer because he smoked cigarettes. (causal) He must be the murderer, because, as we have already proved, he was the only one in the victim's room that night. (ground/consequent) These different senses do not go together. "'You hold that belief because you are a man,' said the woman tartly." The woman is saying that the man's beliefs are CAUSED (by male hormones, say), and therefore his conclusion was not arrived at logically and can be dismissed. His belief could only be true accidentally. It is not derived from a logical progession, but was caused. All our beliefs are physically caused, since there is nothing but the physical; therefore, they are true only accidentally. This message has been edited by robinrohan, 02-04-2006 04:22 PM This message has been edited by robinrohan, 02-04-2006 04:23 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Usually you are so clear I'm surprised I can't figure out what you are saying about the physical causation of mind/thoughts etc. You've said it many times but I'm still not getting it. I get the two senses of "because" but I don't get your overall point.
All our beliefs are physically caused, since there is nothing but the physical; therefore, they are true only accidentally. I think I get the logical point, but I can't imagine something being true "only accidentally" -- if it's true it's true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
I think I get the logical point, but I can't imagine something being true "only accidentally" -- if it's true it's true. It's like the conclusion of a syllogism, which might be true but not valid: All fathers are males.George W. Bush is a male. Therefore, George W. Bush is a father. Goerge W. Bush is in fact a father, but the logic of the syllogism is invalid. The conclusion is true accidentally.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: In an obligatory nod to the topic I point out (again) that evolution does not require that nothing exists but the physical. As for the quoted statement, it is a clear non-sequitur. There is no basis for the unstated assumption that a physical entity cannot embody reliable belief-formation mechanisms. j
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
All our beliefs are physically caused, since there is nothing but the physical; therefore, they are true only accidentally.
Sigh! Your previous statement was "Our logic becomes especially questionable if our world is completely physical." There is a big difference between "our world is completely physical" and "there is nothing but the physical". The number 5 is abstract, so not physical There are legitimate questions about whether there are such things as beliefs. Maybe "belief" is a term in an inadequate theory of mind, and doesn't really reference anything. Even ignoring that, you are saying about beliefs "therefore, they are true only accidentally." You still have not explained this. Why do you claim that physical causation must result in beliefs being accidental?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Why do you claim that physical causation must result in beliefs being accidental? {ABE: It isn't "beliefs" that are accidental, but anything we think is true happening in fact to BE true} This much I think I get: Because there is no actual self or *I* that is the generator of the idea, thought, belief. It's all an illusion. Beliefs, thoughts, mind, sense of self, all are just part of this automaton that is merely an epiphenomenon of the physical entity that came about by the purely physical processes of evolution. These patterns were selected by physical processes to enhance survival. That makes all the thought processes "automatic" in a sense, or preprogrammed in a sense, rather than intended. Without intention any correspondence they may have with actual fact or truth is purely accidental. I think. This message has been edited by Faith, 02-04-2006 08:15 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3992 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.5 |
Beliefs, thoughts, mind, sense of self, all are just part of this automaton that is merely an epiphenomenon of the physical entity that came about by the purely physical processes of evolution. These patterns were selected by physical processes to enhance survival. That makes all the thought processes "automatic" in a sense, or preprogrammed in a sense, rather than intended. Without intention any correspondence they may have with actual fact or truth is purely accidental. I think. How could a process that only accidentally yielded correspondences with truth enhance survival? Survival is enchanced by accuracy, and evolution has produced processes which maximize the probability of accurate thoughts. The brains that produced inaccurate thoughts suffered the consequences and produced fewer to no descendants. Evolution produced the engine of thought, not the thoughts themselves. This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 02-04-2006 08:30 PM "Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?" -Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night Save lives! Click here!Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC! ---------------------------------------
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024