Lost marbles (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, October 30, 2009, 01:17 (5296 days ago) @ George Jelliss

xeno wrote: "Part of where my problem comes in, is that induction has never been proven right. (Or wrong.) We know it works but can't explain why. It doesn't follow the same rules as deduction. This is similar to the creationist argument that says "because science can't prove itself, it must be rejected." However, the problem of induction is still a very open question in the study of logic. It turns out that the practical benefits of science (it works without needing to know why) outweigh the negative arguments against induction." 
> 
> I'd like to put in a good word for induction. It is essentially the way science works. We look at the facts, the data, and collect as many different cases as possible, and then try to fit a theory or formula to the data, and then work out the consequences of these, and go back to testing whether the predictions agree with nature. I don't see that there is any problem with the logic involved. It worked for people like Humphrey Davy, Michael Faraday and Louis Pasteur, and its still valid today.
> -I think that YOU think I'm taking a more formal assault on induction... as Istated, its practical use outweighs the lack of a formal proof. However, to strict logicians, this is a thorny issue. (As would be expected, they are strict logicians!) Logically it is like saying "Induction is correct because it works..." which is a common fallacy. -I agree with you that David is engaging in speculation, and not induction, but I'm still trying to raise some deeper philosophical issues, such as the fact that the... "design hypothesis" isn't actually testable and therefore cannot be assigned a probability limit the same way we would for abiogenesis. You say as much here but I figured I'd make it more explicit. -
> The problem with the examples cited by DT in this thread is that they are not based on induction but are in the realms of pure speculation, if not fantasy. They are more akin to the speculations of the pre-Socratic philosophers. Perhaps it is due in part to the power of modern mathematics to generate unlimited models that will fit the data. 
> -Well, that claim isn't really so surprising when mathematics is simply another form of human language; it is as expressive and creative as any other form of writing as I have knowledge of. But I think in these instances it is more of people bridging explanations to fit data than it is something powered by mathematics. -> It is then necessary to apply other criteria, such as Ockham's razor, or aesthetic considerations, or plain common sense, to prevent us being carried away with imagination, until such time as we have more empirical data.-The problem here is that the majority of people don't have the capacity to delay gratification for the amount of time it takes to resolve these matters.-In the future, George, feel free to Call me "Matt." I... just don't know why my name change never took. They tie it to my email address, apparently.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"