DonRetrasado wrote:An example of inductive reasoning (stolen from wiki) goes like such:
All of the swans that all living beings have ever seen are white
Therefore, all swans are white.
Of course, we know that this doesn't actually "prove" anything. No matter how many swans you see that are white, it's always possible that one day you will find a swan that is not white, meaning that our conclusion was incorrect. That's why science hinges on the belief that induction is real; even though the scientific method says that, with enough data, we should always get a predictable result, there's always the possibility that something comes up and smashes that to bits (which, as we know, happens quite frequently). Science and induction are extremely useful to us but they're not "real" or "truth" in the same way that, for instance, deductive reasoning is. (of course, many philosophers, like Descartes, argued that the number of "real" conclusions we could derive from deductive reasoning is actually quite limited)
There are black swans in New Zealand. I'm not sure if this strengthens your example or not...
DonRetrasado wrote:An example of inductive reasoning (stolen from wiki) goes like such:
All of the swans that all living beings have ever seen are white
Therefore, all swans are white.
Of course, we know that this doesn't actually "prove" anything. No matter how many swans you see that are white, it's always possible that one day you will find a swan that is not white, meaning that our conclusion was incorrect. That's why science hinges on the belief that induction is real; even though the scientific method says that, with enough data, we should always get a predictable result, there's always the possibility that something comes up and smashes that to bits (which, as we know, happens quite frequently). Science and induction are extremely useful to us but they're not "real" or "truth" in the same way that, for instance, deductive reasoning is. (of course, many philosophers, like Descartes, argued that the number of "real" conclusions we could derive from deductive reasoning is actually quite limited)
There are black swans in New Zealand. I'm not sure if this strengthens your example or not...
His point was that it was ultimatey a foolish assumption to make, and obviously not logically irrefutable. I remember this example first mentioned by my first year maths lecturer, and yeah, the black swan features on the flag of Western Australia, so it's existence is well known.
Destructicus wrote:
Alt text:
"I wonder if chemists feel bad that they're always left out of these sorts of jokes."
So those of you who are referring to inductive reasoning as being 'dead' or otherwise useless, do you just mean in reference to scientific thought? I agree induction is a badly flawed system of thought, but I also can't imagine getting through life without using it nor do I want to have to qualify every statement I make. I personally don't have time to go about looking for swans that aren't white to test the hypothesis that all swans are white. I can take the mental position that the existence of a non-white swan is possible. But if someone asked me to describe swans, one of the physical characteristics I'm probably going to mention is that they are white.*
*I only use swans to continue the example. I know there are swans that aren't white as mentioned before, so I wouldn't actually say this
Kaharz wrote:I don't need a title. I have no avatar or tagline either. I am unique in my lack of personal identifiers.
There's also the classic example: "You are a chicken. Every morning since you were born, the farmer comes in to feed you, and then leaves. What is he going to do tomorrow morning? He chops off your head and eats you for Christmas dinner." that is, knowing that something happened in the past doesn't say anything about whether it will happen again in the future.
I remember proving in one of my classes that while induction is invalid logically, algorithms involving induction are the "Best you could do" in retrospect. That is, looking back on all the decisions you made, and all the decisions you possibly could have made given the information available to you, it is possible to construct the "best algorithm possible" given your available information, which gives you a mathematical quantity known as "zero regret," and this algorithm must be inductive.
So, while induction doesn't hold philosophical weight, practically, it's as good as we can do. Assuming the chicken knew nothing about Christmas day, or farmers chopping off chicken's heads, the best he could have done was to assume he'd be fed tomorrow morning, just like on every other day.
Fun fact: Nobody talks like this
Fun fact 2: If they did people would constantly punch them
Fun fact 3 (specifically for Theotherguy): Nobody eats chickens on christmas day....
My problem with science (physics especially) is the assumption that only one theory can produce the results shown. Basically, if a theory predicts an outcome, and that outcome is observed, that theory must necessarily be true.
And even when contradictory evidence comes to light, it's altered to fit the theory. There was a gamma ray burst a while back that broke the laws of physics as we know them. So rather than actually working on the assumption that maybe, just maybe, some of those laws need to be looked at, they went and altered the observation. I'm not going to go into why their explanation is BS (it goes against a law of nature), but it was.
Anyways, it's like saying that 3 + 4 is the only equation that can come out to 7 because 3 + 4 was the first equation that came out as 7. It's very frustrating to me.
That and how hostile physicists get about new theories that challenge long-standing theories.
Basically, physicists have built themselves a tower of logical fallacies from where they sit and rule their kingdom that believes them appointed by Science Itself. In reality, a lot of physicists are shitty scientists.
Something wrote:My problem with science (physics especially) is the assumption that only one theory can produce the results shown. Basically, if a theory predicts an outcome, and that outcome is observed, that theory must necessarily be true.
You know nothing about the scientific method. Go read Thomas Kuhn, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," or at least go browse the Wikipedia page.
Unless, of course, you're unwilling to examine evidence that contradicts your theory. That would be ironic.
Sir, why do you insist on creating a disturbance? We here at SMBC relish the local characters but you seem to be out to antagonise them.
What's your deal man? Seriously. Come on, bro, be cool. Chill, buddy. Relax my friend. This ain't your house. Your wallpaper doesn't seem to be present. I'm not gaping at a picture of your fucking daughter in a tacky as shit picture frame, so maybe take it down a notch, man. This guy just wanted to share his views, and you come in here, trying to make him a laughing stock?
