quote:

---

there are no tits in the closet

i am Tasty

therefore there are no tits in the house

especially not black ones

---

What makes you think that my inference isn't the same as this? As I said, if I observe a black swan, given what I now know about swans, I can infer that not all swans are white. But if I only observe white swans, given what I know about swans, I can infer that swans are white.

The "given what I know about swans" part is assumed when I say it is an uncertain inductive inference. That's what makes it uncertain--the fact that I possibly do not know everything about swans.

However, for you to claim that we can't go about making these inferences because they could be wrong is silly. That's what science does. It takes the observations we have on a subject and infers a testable hypothesis. These hypotheses are often wrong. However, if you get one and test it many times and it doesn't come up wrong, you can come away with a little assurance that it is correct--but not much. It could always be falsified.

The problem with many non-scientific thinkers is that they are too afraid of being wrong. Being wrong is actually a good thing in science. If we never knew we were wrong, we'd never make any progress!

I think your debate with me is largely based on a misunderstanding of what I'm saying, boorite. I'm basically saying the same thing as you.

All syllogisms are crap.

This is a syllogism.

Therefore, this is crap.

---
What others say about boorite!

What makes you think that my inference isn't the same as this?

Can you tell the difference between "does not exist because we have not noticed one" and "may or may not exist, although we have not yet noticed one?" The key is that one says "does not exist," and the other says "may exist."

But it would not be very rational to infer, based on this, that there are no black swans-- just that the chances of finding one are extremely low under the circumstances.

I didn't say you can't. I said you might choose an inference that has a higher probability of being true.

You keep saying science makes claims like "black swans do not exist" all the time. I'm not saying that's impossible, but I am saying I sure haven't noticed it. Maybe you can provide some observations of this that have escaped my attention.

Yes, science generates testable hypotheses, many of which prove false, and this is a strength of science. It says, if such and such theory holds, then we should predict so-and-so. Then not-so-and-so is observed. Such and such theory is falsified. Science marches on.

What science does not do, as far as I know, is positively claim the nonexistence of something based on the failure to observe it. Science may claim that its existence contradicts known laws, and therefore cannot exist, e.g.: A heavier-than-air balloon that can fly on its own does not exist. The inference is from physical law, not just from never having seen a heavier-than-air balloon that flies.

Contrast with the black swan thing.

---
What others say about boorite!

Mandingo--
I long conceded that my point is not scientific. Bringing up that quote is useless, because I am not arguing that point.

But because you love using old quotes of mine completely out of context, I shall do the same for you:

Mandingo:
"say i claim there is no cat on your lap. that's the hypothesis. well, using the scientific method, i run the test by observing what is on your lap. if there is a cat on your lap, then i have falsified the hypothesis. if there is no cat on your lap then i have verified the hypothesis. that is, i have verified the cat's non-existence"

Do you remember saying that? This claim of yours basically proves my point. You see no evidence of a cat in my lap. You infer from this lack of evidence for a cat that there is no cat. Congratulations. You've made a valid inference. No, this is not a logical fallacy, anymore than the principle of induction is a logical fallacy. We can and do make such inferences every day. I notice that thousands of humans have sex organs. I infer fromt his that all humans have sex organs, and there exist no humans without them. I infer from the lack of falsifying evidence for humans without sex organs that all humans have sex organs. It's a valid inference.

I honestly don't see how you can make a remark like that and then blindly assert that the absence of evidence cannot be used to infer absence.

Boorite-

Look at any scientific theory ever. Scientists have measured the speed of light a few, say, million times. It has always come up at a constant speed. They infer from these limited observations that the speed of light is unchanging, and it will always be this speed for EVERY observation.

Now, this inference says that the speed of light will always be this way based on a limited number of observations. The lacking evidence to the contrary leads us to conclude that it will not be any other speed (because science works through falsification). So we infer from the lacking evidence of a different speed that it will always be the same speed. If we ever see a different speed, it goes out the window, and we change it.

This is the same principle used with the swans--a limited observation is universalized, and we hold that universalized view until it is falsified. Of course, this view is held under the assumption that it could always be potentially falsified and that it is far from deductively certain.

That's actually completely wrong. I'm not good at talking all this science crap like you boys, but what I know is this...

The speed of light is a constant only because it hasn't been adequately proved otherwise. There's always going to be some scientist who theorizes, "The speed of light is constant, UNLESS..." . That's how science works and that's how we continue to advance. Do you think the guys who pioneered floppy disks said, "We can fit 8k (or whatever) bytes of information on this disk, so this is as big as disks will ever get."? There's always someone who says "unless", and that's why we have that squeezy cheez stuff. Most everyone at the time said, "We can only slice cheese off a cheese wheel. That's the only way we'll ever eat cheese." And some other guy said, "Unless we figure out how to put it in a spray can, faggots. Check me out, I put cheese in a spray can." And we entered a new age of spreadable cheese.
As drunk as I am right now (and I'm really very drunk), that's the best I can explain science and thinking and stuff and I'm pretty sure I'm 100,000% correct.

But hey... it's Christmas... and Christmas has nothing whatsoever to do with God or religion, so let's give this a rest for a day. Maybe you could disprove the existence of mistletoe. I've never seen that shit outside of movies. Except the plastic kind. Mistletoe doesn't exist, because I've never seen it, except the plastic kind. Unless it exists slightly out of phase from the rest of the naturally occuring Christmas plants and/or ornaments. In which case it does, in fact, exist. That's why I always kiss whoever is standing next to me if I find myself directly underneath a wormhole or something. Because you never know.

quote:

---

Boorite-

Look at any scientific theory ever. Scientists have measured the speed of light a few, say, million times. It has always come up at a constant speed. They infer from these limited observations that the speed of light is unchanging, and it will always be this speed for EVERY observation.

---

For a guy who can't even get the mailman to leave stuff in the hallway, you sure know a lot about God and science.

:)

Merry Christmas, ivy amd boo.

---
I wanted my half in the middle and I wound up on the edge.

Mail delivery people who leave packages in the snow are proof of the existence of Satan. Satan cannot exist without God to have created him, therefore I can infer that God exists.

Boo and Yah.

---
It was such a waste of everyone’s time and money that even the Tokyo stadium’s rape robots apologized– something they were programmed specifically never to do.

tools... of SATAN

---
What others say about boorite!

Boorite--

If the speed of light varies, then the scientists inductive inference that it is constant was wrong. Scientists did make this inference before, I assure you.

The fact that it was wrong doesn't mean it wasn't a scientific inference.

Squidrabies--

quote:

---

The speed of light is a constant only because it hasn't been adequately proved otherwise.{/quote]

Well, duh. That's why I have emphasized in all my continual postings on this subject that science operates according to falsification. They are allowed to make such inferences about the speed of light because these inferences can be falsified.

The issue you're all pointing out is that this inference isn't absolutely certain--but what makes you think I am saying it is absolutely certain? I have constantly repeated myself by remarking upon its uncertainty. However, this doesn't mean that we can't infer that the speed of light is constant if we always observe that it is.

(For the record, it's not constant. Scientists used to believe this, but a new observation falsified it.)

Oh, and merry-whatever-it-is-you-celebrate to you all, espcially mandingo and boorite for the interesting discussion.

I have scientifically proven that it is impossible for people to get or enjoy a joke in the middle of a scientific or theological debate.

Not even when I talk about squeezy cheez.

For my next trick I will compare evolution vs. creationism to the mighty morphin' power rangers, and possibly start a jihad.

Mandingo--

Since you require a source that validates my claim, here you go:

quote:

---

The fallacy of negative proof is a type of logical fallacy of the following form:

"No one has produced an example of one; therefore it doesn't exist."

While the assertion has some strength as an epistemic directive, logically it has none. Logically one may argue that just because we have not observed a particular phenomenon, that is no reason to exclude its possibility. The epistemological slant though is to require a demonstration, before one admits that one is compelled to admit the phenomenon as real.

The problem with the argument is precisely that it has no logical force, but is nevertheless a necessary guiding principle for scientists.

---

quote:

---

Look at any scientific theory ever. Scientists have measured the speed of light a few, say, million times. It has always come up at a constant speed. They infer from these limited observations that the speed of light is unchanging, and it will always be this speed for EVERY observation.

---

Boorite--

"The speed of light in a vacuum is defined to be exactly 299,792,458 metres per second (or 1,079,252,848.8 km/h, which is approximately 186,282.397 miles per second, or 670,616,629.4 miles per hour). This value is denoted by the letter c, reputedly from the Latin celeritas, "speed", and also known as Einstein's constant."

"If one combines this observation with the principle of relativity, one concludes that all observers will measure the speed of light in vacuum as being the same, regardless of the reference frame of the observer or the velocity of the object emitting the light. Because of this, one can view c as a fundamental physical constant. This fact can then be used as a basis for the theory of special relativity. It is worth noting that it is the constant speed c, rather than light itself, which is fundamental to special relativity; thus if light is somehow manipulated to travel at more or less than c, this will not directly affect the theory of special relativity."

Taken from Wikipedia at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light

But really, boorite, scientists use inductive inferences. Every scientific theory is based on such an inference.

just so I understand. Why are facts that can be proven being used in a discussion about religion?

Hey guys, I went to go get the popcorn. What did I miss?

---
possible savior probable SEX MACHINE

quote:

---

"The speed of light in a vacuum is defined to be exactly 299,792,458 metres per second (or 1,079,252,848.8 km/h, which is approximately 186,282.397 miles per second, or 670,616,629.4 miles per hour). This value is denoted by the letter c, reputedly from the Latin celeritas, "speed", and also known as Einstein's constant."

---

To elaborate slightly on the grams/milliliter H2O example: The density of water is variable. Then how can the gram be constant, given that it is defined as the mass of 1 ml of water? Because 1 gram/milliliter is the density of water under very precise and specific conditions. This quantity is thought to be constant not so much because of millions of unvarying observations, but because the laws of physics lead us to say that a substance should always have the same density under the same conditions. Otherwise, the universe is chaos. Thus, we're justified in defining our very units of measure in terms of a substance's physical properties, and in saying a variation in grams/milliliter (other things being equal) doesn't make sense.

How can c be a constant, given that c is defined in terms of the speed of light, and the speed of light is variable? Same way.

---
What others say about boorite!

Yeah? Well what about staying away from women who are unclean when they menstruate? How far? Is it a definitive constant of distance, or do I have to reggilate? If the bitch throws a roasting pan at me, is my duck speed always a variable of Planck's constant, vis a vis the regularity at which the light reflecting off of the pan allows me to pecieve the distance and velocity of said pan - the prime equation necessary to duck the pan, or should I just sleep on the roof?

This science stuff is not very practical.

My head hurts, you weenieburger.

Damn college kids.

---
I wanted my half in the middle and I wound up on the edge.

Science uses induction. The swan theory is an inference made by induction.

Galileo dropped two objects from the same height, noting that they fell at the same speed despite their differing weight. He did this test a few times. He inferred from this that the weight of an object can never affect the speed. (Wind resistance can, though.)

Now, this inference is based on induction. It is possible that we could observe an object fall faster because of its weight, thus falsifying the theory. The fact that this is a possibility shows that it is an INDUCTIVE inference, not a deductive one. It is just like the swan example--it can be proven false and the conclusion doesn't absolutely follow.

Seriously, dude. Just google "scientific method" and "induction" if you don't believe me. You'll most likely find a wide assortment of credible sites that verify this. If you deny this, I really don't see how you can say science works.

Newton's third law says for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. He arrived at this conclusion through observation. However, he can't infer that this will ALWAYS hold for EVERY test if he has only tested it a limited number of time. The next test could falsify this. Therefore, the inference is inductive.

Seriously. EVERY scientific theory uses induction. A few can arguably be said to use "deduction" by assuming the validity of premises that have been proven inductively, but then the claim is still based on induction, because the premises are.

I honestly don't know why you are denying this. You seem like an intelligent guy, and it's rather self-evident that this is a part of the process of science.

How do scientists come up with theories, if not with induction? If you won't accept my claim, please explain how they would arrive at a theory based upon observational evidence.