|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Induction and Science | |||||||||||||||||||||||
JustinC Member (Idle past 4875 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
I guess I tend to agree with this. Obviously you need deduction when changing units, but not when doing the actual measurement. Correct?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Obviously you need deduction when changing units, but not when doing the actual measurement. Correct?
That's what seems obvious to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1429 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
Big mistake there, crashfrog. Comparison is a very difficult problem. Isn't this part of measurement error? If we include measurement error, then it seems to me this concern goes away. Exact comparison is a very difficult problem. But comparison within some definable error is tractable, it seems. I agree that measurement is not a deductive process; it is a physical one. You could use all the deduction in the world, but without gathering a data point, you're not going to have anything to deduce. Seems a trivial point. Anyway, how does this tie into the topic? I didn't have the luxury of paging through everything. (But I'm back baby! )
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Exact comparison is a very difficult problem. But comparison within some definable error is tractable, it seems.
My comment was a response to crashfrom "Comparing the same characteristic of two objects is trivial,..". That could include comparing a small green apple with a big red apple, or a small green apple with a green plum (of about the same size as the apple). Object comparison is difficult. Admittedly, crashfrog was mainly concerned with the comparisons required for measuring. But even then, you have to know what you are measuring in order to know what you are comparing. We find it easy, but if you try to automate general purpose measuring with a robotic system, you will discover that it isn't at all easy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
This:
That could include comparing a small green apple with a big red apple Is not a response to this:
"Comparing the same characteristic of two objects is trivial,..". Comparing the same characteristics, as I specified, is trivial. It's trivial to measure the dimensions of apples, be they green or red. And it's trivial to measure the color of apples of any size.
We find it easy, but if you try to automate general purpose measuring with a robotic system, you will discover that it isn't at all easy. I can think of several easy ways to do it, specific to the measurement of each characteristic. If I wanted to measure the volume of an object I could immerse it and measure the displacement. Weight is trivial. Mass slightly less so. (I would probably measure its inertia.) Length? I suppose that means determining the long aspect of the object, but again, inertia and the center of mass can be used to properly orient the object for measurement. I mean, seriously. These things don't sound that hard. I'm not trying to be overconfident, and maybe you have a different definition of "non-trivial" than I do. But these things seem trivial if one simply applies a little creativity. The same as one would have to do in a mathematical proof.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Comparing the same characteristics, as I specified, is trivial.
Whether it is an apple or a plum is a characteristic. My answer was responsive.
I can think of several easy ways to do it, specific to the measurement of each characteristic.
Easy for you, sure. That's because you have a lot of experience. It isn't easy to automate.
If I wanted to measure the volume of an object I could immerse it and measure the displacement.
This doesn't work very well if the object dissolves in water, reacts chemically with water, or soaks up water.
Weight is trivial. Mass slightly less so. (I would probably measure its inertia.)
It won't be easy to measure the inertia of something that is soft and squishy.
These things don't sound that hard.
That's because you have never tried to design a general purpose robotic system that could do it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5882 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
# Yesterday, I bumped into Betty Crowe. She was wearing black shoes. # Two weeks ago, I was introduced to John Crowe. I happened to notice that he was wearing black shoes. # Bob Crowe was one of my high school friends. As I recall, he wore black shoes. All the Crowes I have observed have been wearing black shoes. Therefore all Crowes are wearing black shoes. The above is an example of the "reasoning" principle known as inductive logic. It is absurd. Nobody would jump to the conclusion that all Crowes are wearing black shoes. There is nothing logical about so-called inductive logic. Why do people still cling to the myth that science uses induction? Why is there an appearance that induction seems to work, and why are people misled by this appearance? The answer to this is something I have mentioned in other posts.People forget that science is concieved by a fallible source that repeats its mistakes and has through out history in both science and religion.. That is a FACT. I can say with confidence it is a human constant. People use induction....science doesn't. Science does not have the capacity to "use" anything. Remember remember remember and do not forget....we are the lynchpin and the world is not flat. This message has been edited by 2ice_baked_taters, 02-24-2006 01:27 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Whether it is an apple or a plum is a characteristic. And what characteristic is that? It's fruitness? I'm sorry, but your response is apples and oranges, if you'll pardon the pun.
This doesn't work very well if the object dissolves in water, reacts chemically with water, or soaks up water. Who said anything about water?
That's because you have never tried to design a general purpose robotic system that could do it. And you have? I'm curious, now. Specifically, which robotic systems have you designed?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
inkorrekt Member (Idle past 6112 days) Posts: 382 From: Westminster,CO, USA Joined: |
Naturalistic philosophers are only promoting Evolution. Scientists are the only ones who have difficult time in finding evidence. They did not find the evidence and on this basis, propose the theory.But,they proposed the theory before the evidence. Darwin himself was fearful about the fossil evidence and the missing link.How can they find Scientific evidence for a Philosophical theory?
This message has been edited by inkorrekt, 03-01-2006 09:01 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
quote:If you have to be careful about what fluid you use, then it is not trivial.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
They did not find the evidence and on this basis, propose the theory.But,they proposed the theory before the evidence.
That's because one of the roles of the theory is to suggest the type of evidence to seek. It is why it is sometimes said that data is theory driven. This is part of the inventiveness of science, and a major reason for science's effectiveness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
You might note, nwr, that the theory did NOT come before the evidence as he-of-most-appropriate-name says. It came before the huge amount of evidence that we have found since. It specifically came before almost ALL the fossil evidence that has been found since.
However, Darwin had considerable evidence it just pales in comparison to what we have now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
You might note, nwr, that the theory did NOT come before the evidence as he-of-most-appropriate-name says.
Theories don't come out of a vacuum. They are attempts to account for evidence. I agree that inkorrekt made some confused and misleading comments about that. Still, it is true that theories usually lead to a search for new data. In the case of ToE, most of the evidence has been found since Darwin proposed his theory. And I think you would agree that the current ToE differs from what Darwin proposed, due to the evidence since uncovered.
However, Darwin had considerable evidence it just pales in comparison to what we have now.
He had evidence that called out for explanation. He offered a rather bold theory, which went well beyond what you could derive from the evidence he had at the time. But that's the way science often advances.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
inkorrekt Member (Idle past 6112 days) Posts: 382 From: Westminster,CO, USA Joined: |
You are right on. Some theories become facts as and when evidence is provided.Other theories stay as theories because, there is no evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
This is mostly confusion between ordinary language use of "theory" (where the word means hypothesis), and the scientific use of "theory" where the word refers to the underlying structure of a body of study.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024