Re: Socialist Schools: Seattle's Sprouting Scourge
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
Because it cannot be rational. If you need evidence to make a rational decision and you cannot ever get evidence by using this method, the method cannot be rational.
It can be a bit too much focus on it as thesis and not as an anti-thesis, but the conclution stays in either case:
If you need evidence to prove that something is rational or not, then the only thing that even can be rational is something that gives evidence.
This does not follow I'm afraid. A "lack of induction" is neither rational or irrational.
Now, I suppose one could push the case that it is rational to stop basing one's beliefs on induction, which leads only to unjustified and irrational conclusions, but on it's own, not basing your beliefs on induction is certainly not irrational.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
Rationality isn't to always be correct, it's also be to optimise your results. And as it's more rational to think that gravity will work tomorrow as it did yesterday, than to abandon it for something that can't be rational, the use of the inductive method is more rational than to not use it.
But, if someone does came up with something that lacks the problem of induction, while still being able to give evidence and doesn't have a bigger problem, then it's more rational to use that method. :holmes:
Ironside, one really must take out personal opinions on what it means to be rational or not.
The fact is, induction will lead to unjustified conclusions, and it will be irrational to hold those conclusions.
Again, it is not rational at all to believe that gravity will work tomorrow like it did today. That has been shown many times to be an irrational belief.
You could argue the case that using the inductive method is more pragmatic than not (where then we will get into the problems with such pragmatic justifications instead of epistemic justifications) but you cannot argue that is more rational.
Re: Socialist Schools: Seattle's Sprouting Scourge
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reenk Roink
You are again missing the point of the problem. It is not a matter of if or when the universe will change. Science cannot predict the future at all as of now, because induction is not a reliable method.
Induction is not a reliable method iff the universe changes ie becomes not uniform. As it has never happened in the past (unless one counts its inception) what are the chances of the universe changing in the future? So I was using ultra-conservative odds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reenk Roink
(Also, I don't know how you can say that there is a 50/50 chance that the universe could change, given that there are near infinite logical possibilities of how it could be different)
It could be any chance, so total all the options and divide by them... 0, 1, 2, 3.. 99,100. On average it would be 50% as we don't know what it is (in this exercise)... it is just a good arbitrary number to start the thought exercise on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reenk Roink
I really don't know what more to say that will make you understand... :shrug:
I think you need to understand the chances of something happening. This is why science is not just induction and does not rely purely on Logic as some would wish. It uses probabilities and does not claim to have absolute answers. Science understanding, its laws are open to change. So far we haven't actually seen the universe change, only our perception and understanding and hence our models of it have. So given no change so far, one uses probability to assess the future chances.
So far since its inception about 15 billion years ago the universe has not changed its character such that science cannot predict what will happen based on past events. Now if the character of the universe changes, induction fails, science stops working. However 15 billion years and no change means the chance of it changing tomorrow is tiny. If tomorrow the universe acts like it did today and it did yesterday then science will work, we can make predictions right up to the point the universe changes.
So you are standing at the roulette wheel of life and told that there is a one in trillion chance (approx 365* 15 billion) that tomorrow the universe changes and science doesn't work so you might as well use astrology or any method. The rest of the time 999,999,999,999 out of 1,000,000,000,000 it will continue on as before.
Where do you place your bets? That tomorrow the universe changes or that it continues on as it has for 15 billion years?
Now even if it does change, the chances are that we will be dead. So even if you select right once out of the trillion times you won't get time to cash in your chips. As a change in the universe significant enough that we can notice, will more then likely result in our immediate deaths. After we are dead we don't need physics, we need metaphysics.
So we have something that will be reliable up and to the point we are dead.
Its not hypocrisy or psychology that holds back the philosophers. It is a gut feeling of understanding the odds of the universe changing and the consequences of that change. A bit more mathematics and understanding of probabilities may ease their minds.
Note: Science doesn't give an absolute answer, it gives a probable one.
Quote:
* Premise: Observed cases of the application of the scientific method have yielded successful predictions.
* Conclusion: Unobserved cases of the application of the scientific method will yield successful predictions.
* The argument is clearly another inductive, ampliative inference: precisely the sort whose justification is in question.
Science would say:
Conclusion: Unobserved cases of the application of the scientific method have a high probability of yielding success.
Quote:
* A typical induction
* Swan 1 is white
* Swan 2 is white.
* ...
* Swan 2,340 is white
* Therefore, (All) swans are white.
* What justifies the conclusion?
This is an incorrect application of induction as used by science. It is hence a strawman argument.
Look up sample population statistics and applying it to a larger population.
Science would go like this:
* Swan 1 is white.
* Swan 2 is white.
* ...
* Swan 2,340
* Probability of all swans being white is xyz,
It is not an absolute answer.
Re: Socialist Schools: Seattle's Sprouting Scourge
Quote:
Note: Science doesn't give an absolute answer, it gives a probable one.
That's very important. That's practically the whole point of science.
Re: Socialist Schools: Seattle's Sprouting Scourge
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Induction is not a reliable method iff the universe changes ie becomes not uniform. As it has never happened in the past (unless one counts its inception) what are the chances of the universe changing in the future? So I was using ultra-conservative odds.
You are now holding a false premise, and this is perhaps why it has been extremely difficult to talk with you about this.
Let me ask you this: Why do you think that induction is not a reliable method if and only if the universe changes? What leads you to that assumption? What justifies that assumption?
Salmon has already shown in a very general term why inductive reasoning fails to be a reliable method.
Your reasoning in this paragraph may hold the answer to why you hold this false premise.
You basically say, the universe has not changed in the past, so it has low odds of changing in the future. If you cannot grasp the elementary logical fallacy in this, then I am at a loss for how to explain it do you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
It could be any chance, so total all the options and divide by them... 0, 1, 2, 3.. 99,100. On average it would be 50% as we don't know what it is (in this exercise)... it is just a good arbitrary number to start the thought exercise on.
Pascal's Wager is criticized (rightly so) for not taking into account the other religions and even sectarian differences. It states that there is a choice between Christianity and non-Christianity, and assigns 50/50 odds, when in fact, factoring all the possibilities makes the odds very bad.
With all the logical possibilities (near infinite) of the types of changes the universe could see, it makes little sense to bet on it staying the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
I think you need to understand the chances of something happening. This is why science is not just induction and does not rely purely on Logic as some would wish. It uses probabilities and does not claim to have absolute answers. Science understanding, its laws are open to change. So far we haven't actually seen the universe change, only our perception and understanding and hence our models of it have. So given no change so far, one uses probability to assess the future chances.
I think David Hume, and especially Karl Popper and Wesley Salmon understand (remember, I am simply referencing their arguments) the nuances of science, how it relates to induction, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
So far since its inception about 15 billion years ago the universe has not changed its character such that science cannot predict what will happen based on past events. Now if the character of the universe changes, induction fails, science stops working. However 15 billion years and no change means the chance of it changing tomorrow is tiny. If tomorrow the universe acts like it did today and it did yesterday then science will work, we can make predictions right up to the point the universe changes.
So you are standing at the roulette wheel of life and told that there is a one in trillion chance (approx 365* 15 billion) that tomorrow the universe changes and science doesn't work so you might as well use astrology or any method. The rest of the time 999,999,999,999 out of 1,000,000,000,000 it will continue on as before.
Where do you place your bets? That tomorrow the universe changes or that it continues on as it has for 15 billion years?
Now even if it does change, the chances are that we will be dead. So even if you select right once out of the trillion times you won't get time to cash in your chips. As a change in the universe significant enough that we can notice, will more then likely result in our immediate deaths. After we are dead we don't need physics, we need metaphysics.
So we have something that will be reliable up and to the point we are dead.
Incorrect reasoning. Read on to see why.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Its not hypocrisy or psychology that holds back the philosophers. It is a gut feeling of understanding the odds of the universe changing and the consequences of that change. A bit more mathematics and understanding of probabilities may ease their minds.
Papewaio, not to sound like a jerk or anything, but I'm quite sure Karl Popper and Wesley Salmon, have a better understanding of the nuances of science, the probability involved, the logic, etc, than you and me.
Quote:
Science would say:
Conclusion: Unobserved cases of the application of the scientific method have a high probability of yielding success.
A note: The thing I gave you was a cliffs note version of a much larger Salmon work. It is well known to Salmon that inductive arguments (claim) to make their conclusions probable. That is the exact point of the problem of induction. It argues that conclusions of inductive arguments cannot be justified at all. They cannot be said to be probable at all. The wording on the cliffs note was bad, but you have changed that. Still, I will show that the same skeptical argument applies.
OK, now here is where I show the bad reasoning. Why do you say "unobserved cases of the application of the scientific method have a high probability of yielding success"?
What justifies your altered conclusion (just like what justifies the original conclusion)? How can you support the conclusion?
The problem of induction argues that you cannot support this conclusion. It does not follow deductively at all, and using induction is circular. Just because many observed cases of the application of the scientific method have yielded successful predictions in the past, it simply does not follow at all that any observed cases of the application will be successful in the future. It does not even add anything to the probability of such a case.
Again, see Hume's dilemma:
Horn 1: There can be no inductive justification of induction (e.g. via (PUN)) because such justifications presuppose that some inductions are justified.
Horn 2: There can be no deductive justification of induction because deductive inferences are non-ampliative, but inductive inferences are ampliative.
Without any justification for induction, how can one claim that something is probable or not based on past instances?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
This is an incorrect application of induction as used by science. It is hence a strawman argument.
Look up sample population statistics and applying it to a larger population.
Science would go like this:
* Swan 1 is white.
* Swan 2 is white.
* ...
* Swan 2,340
* Probability of all swans being white is xyz,
It is not an absolute answer.
See the note and rebuttal earlier.
Science may claim to give a probable answer, but it does not actually do so, as it is using induction.
Re: Socialist Schools: Seattle's Sprouting Scourge
Quote:
You are now holding a false premise, and this is perhaps why it has been extremely difficult to talk with you about this.
Let me ask you this: Why do you think that induction is not a reliable method if and only if the universe changes? What leads you to that assumption? What justifies that assumption?
Salmon has already shown in a very general term why inductive reasoning fails to be a reliable method.
Your reasoning in this paragraph may hold the answer to why you hold this false premise.
You basically say, the universe has not changed in the past, so it has low odds of changing in the future. If you cannot grasp the elementary logical fallacy in this, then I am at a loss for how to explain it do you.
Has the universe ever changed in its lifespan? No.
So why assume that there is a 100% chance of it happening in the next instant? That is irrational by probability calculations.
Salmon only proves that induction fails in a changing universe, not in a static one.
There is no proof that this universe has changed and therefore no reason to assume it can change. I was being generous in assigning 50% chance that it can change, when I would give it much less then a 0.0001% chance.
Induction will work as long as past inferences work in the future. They will work in the future as long as the nature of the universe stays the same. Even then, with science we assume that our models, our understanding is not 100% correct that we have a chance of being incorrect with out assumptions and having to go back to the drawing board.
Quote:
Pascal's Wager is criticized (rightly so) for not taking into account the other religions and even sectarian differences. It states that there is a choice between Christianity and non-Christianity, and assigns 50/50 odds, when in fact, factoring all the possibilities makes the odds very bad.
With all the logical possibilities (near infinite) of the types of changes the universe could see, it makes little sense to bet on it staying the same.
As I said, I was being generous about giving it as high a chance as 50%. Even then it leaves a very small chance of a change happening in our lifetimes, and even smaller that we could survive the event.
The way some scientists see the big bang of the universe is the time when the possibilities of the universe were set. The big bang is the rolling of the infinite dice and the static result is this universe. To get another possibility you have to travel to another universe within the multiverse.
As observed so far from nanoseconds of the big bang to 15 odd billion years later, the universe hasn't changed itself to the point that the laws we derive for them have to be changed. We can look over a 15 billion year time span and use the same laws. It gives a confidence that they will work tomorrow. But again I reiterate that it is a high probability that we use not an absolute answer.
Quote:
The problem of induction argues that you cannot support this conclusion. It does not follow deductively at all, and using induction is circular. Just because many observed cases of the application of the scientific method have yielded successful predictions in the past, it simply does not follow at all that any observed cases of the application will be successful in the future. It does not even add anything to the probability of such a case.
Any care for a wager on gravity working tomorrow? I'll give you $1000 Australian (about 3 pounds UK :clown: ) if tomorrow gravity no longer works. If it does work, you can just give me your acceptance that maybe the philosophers have a Euclidian point. Do you think that is a fair bet?
Re: Socialist Schools: Seattle's Sprouting Scourge
*sigh*
I'm about give up Papewaio. :surrender2:
Now, don't for one second think that I have changed my position on things. As much as I would like to switch paradigms, the skeptical arguments against induction are just too good. I'm just tired of explaining to no avail. You either just don't get it or don't want to get it.
You are making arguments on probability now, so I think you don't realize that the problem of induction makes those arguments moot beforehand...
Quoting Hume himself:
Quote:
Nay, I will go further and assert that [you] could not so much as prove by any probable arguments that the future must be conformable to the past. All probable arguments are built on the supposition that there is this conformity betwixt the future and the past, and therefore [you] can never prove it.
probability = owned :duel:
So it doesn't matter that the universe hasn't changed in it's lifespan (if that is even true). We simply do not have a method that will show us that it will remain the same. We even don't have a method that will tell us if it is probable that it will remain the same.
You say there is no reason to assume that it can change. Correct. It is a logical possibility, but logical possibility alone doesn't mean much. However, there is no reason to assume it will stay the same either. That's the flipping point!
I know you will simply respond that "well, it has stayed the same in the past", and I have tried every stratagem to show you the circularity of your argument but to no avail.
You were not generous in giving it 50%. You grossly overestimated, by a margin of...almost 50%. Your appeal to probability is useless; the problem of induction has already dealt it a fatal blow...
Your last point simply plays on human psychology, and I remind you again, that you have not advanced any rational argument against the problem of induction OR in support of induction.
So I don't know if I will post much more on this, but just watch out when you or anyone claim that scientific predictions are rational... :wink:
Re: Socialist Schools: Seattle's Sprouting Scourge
Quote:
So I don't know if I will post much more on this, but just watch out when you or anyone claim that scientific predictions are rational...
Not rational, just lucky and based on irrational probability.
So you don't want to take up the wager? :laugh4:
Hume would have to have shown first that there is no link between past and future. Much like showing that one end of a ruler is not connected to the other. Time isn't what philosophers used to think it was, it is just another physical dimension.
Without showing prior change in the universe to say that it will change is like stating that little green leprachauns exist without ever having seen one.
The burden of proof for this is on Hume and his followers. Till then old sport, science kicks ass, takes men to the moon, creates medical technology and explains nature all through sheer persistent luck. After all although we have the same chance of getting things right as astrology but we seem to keep rolling 6's all the way through our oppositions superior forces.
Rimmer, Rimmer, Rimmer!
Re: Socialist Schools: Seattle's Sprouting Scourge
Two ending things:
1) The burden of proof to show that nature will resemble the past in the future is on the person who is trying to push forward such a postulate. Notice that Hume never claims that the universe will change in the future. He simply claims that we have no reason to believe that it will stay the same. It is a skeptical claim, concerning lack of knowledge. It is not up to Hume, who says we don't know either way. It is up to the person supporting induction, who claims one way, or to the opposite man, who claims the other, to provide proof.
2) No I'm not going to make your wager. I already have stated that I believe that gravity will hold tomorrow, just that I can offer no argument or reason for the belief. It is a matter of purely irrational faith. I'm like that conditioned dog. Whenever bells ring, I start to salivate, thinking that food will come, though I have nothing but a few correlations in the past to go on...
Re: Socialist Schools: Seattle's Sprouting Scourge
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reenk Roink
2) No I'm not going to make your wager. I already have stated that I believe that gravity will hold tomorrow, just that I can offer no argument or reason for the belief. It is a matter of purely irrational faith. I'm like that conditioned dog. Whenever bells ring, I start to salivate, thinking that food will come, though I have nothing but a few correlations in the past to go on...
Do you think then, that science gets it right by just being more lucky then another method?
It seems more irrational to hold to an argument that is wrong every day then holding onto an argument that may one day fail.
Re: Socialist Schools: Seattle's Sprouting Scourge
Re: Socialist Schools: Seattle's Sprouting Scourge
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Do you think then, that science gets it right by just being more lucky then another method?
It seems more irrational to hold to an argument that is wrong every day then holding onto an argument that may one day fail.
A couple of more things
If someone was arguing this point:
In the future, nature and the universe would change.
...then he would have to supply his reasoning for such a claim. Of course, he would be hard pressed to do so.
However, the argument I referenced of Hume as stated by Salmon is most certainly not arguing that point.
What it is arguing is: do we have any reason to believe that nature and the universe will continue to remain the same? After showing that all rational attempts to justify this belief fail (deductive justification is impossible of ampliative things and inductive justification is not allowed, because it begs the question [the thing being called into question is induction itself]), the argument comes to the conclusion that (so far) we have no good reason to believe that the universe and nature will remain the same tomorrow.
So technically these two positions are equally irrational:
1) I believe that the universe and nature will remain the same tomorrow.
2) I believe that the universe and nature will change tomorrow.
As we have no good reason to believe either way.
It may seem (you use the word "irrational", but that is not a good word) absurd that they are equally irrational beliefs, but that is again a psychological reaction. Again, one must rationally demonstrate why one is more rational (or irrational) then the other. The justification you have given is that the universe has stayed the same in the past. Well, like said a great many deal of times before, that won't cut it, as it is a circular argument that begs the question.
It does absolutely nothing to justify or even make probable the belief that the universe will remain the same in the future.
