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

Of course science uses induction. And a sample (well, a representative sample) of swans in which all swans are white supports the hypothesis that all swans are white. The evidence is said to support the hypothesis to a specific degree, a mathematical probability. This is exactly what I've said.

What you do not seem able to see is the distinction between a statement like "we assign a degree of likelihood to the hypothesis that all swans are white" and one that says "no black swans exist because we haven't seen one." Put simply, the former says they might exist (however low we judge the probability), and the latter says they do not exist. Do you grasp the distinction between might and doesn't?

Call it mere wordplay if you like, but it would be a different ballgame if you said, "I am justified in assigning a low probability to the existence of black swans." This is not quite what you've said about either black swans or God. With regard to God, you've claimed to have disproved Its existence. You don't seem to grasp that inductive logic deals in probabilities and uncertainties, even though you have said so yourself.

From what you've written, I suppose you'd like to avoid all this probability and uncertainty with regard to God, because it would place you in the "agnostic" camp, and you've made it clear you've no desire to be there. But that's inductive logic for you. There is an avenue of escape, but you know that.

quote:

---

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.

---

Newton's process, in which hypothetical physical laws are derived from observation, which laws in turn make predictions which are then tested, is not reducible to simple enumerative induction, as in the swan example. The demolition of your argument about the speed of light should have made this abundantly clear.

quote:

---

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.

---

Too many intervening variables. Until a more precise and comprehensive model of thrown object avoidance can be developed, you must sleep on the roof if you are to confidently minimize the risk of being struck in the head by the roasting pan.

---
What others say about boorite!

Well, first chuck and I (actually, mostly chuck... I just started it) decimated the fundies in debating theological beliefs and the ramifications of humanities impact on them. Then I sort of wandered off for a while, frolicking in daisies and whatnot.

When I got back the thread had evolved far beyond a simple theological debate. Now they're debating the significance of the sub-points of the possibility that someone could deduce in any given way the truth over the existence of God, and what that argument would encompass to have to be correct.

Or ham.

There's a lot of text.

---
the kid's getting old, the kid's getting old

mmmm ham

---
What others say about boorite!

[Click to view comic: 'Tard Boy and Finkelman']

Too many intervening variables. Until a more precise and comprehensive model of thrown object avoidance can be developed, you must sleep on the roof if you are to confidently minimize the risk of being struck in the head by the roasting pan.

I knew it. : (

*gets some blankets*

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

She probably wouldn't throw a very big roasting pan at you, though, unless you called her a bitch :D

---
“It is only with the heart that one sees rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye.” - The Little Prince by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (1945)

Well...

...I'm gone for five days and miss all this?

Special thanks goes to Influenza.

This is going to take forever to read..

---
Don't like it? Eat me.

I tried to read it. Then my brain glazed over and rebelled until I watched some car crash sequences. Now I just get the highlights from boorite.

Path of least resistance.

quote:

---

Well...

...I'm gone for five days and miss all this?

Special thanks goes to Influenza.

This is going to take forever to read..

---

Boorite--

You and I are not really disagreeing. First of all, when a scientist makes an inductive inference, it is not meant to be absolutely certain. This is taking into account the probability part.

Now, with the swan example, if I observed 5000 white swans, and no black swans, and I had no idea how many total swans there are...how would I assign a probability to this? The reason that inductive arguments generalize claims like this is because it would be IMPOSSIBLE to assign an accurate probability. This is why scientists just say all swans are white given that evidence, not that there is a probability of a swan being white. They say, given the evidence, we can assume all swans are white until that is falsified. It's pretty obvious that this is how induction works.

Think of the inductive inferences you make in everyday life. You turn your car's steering wheel right, and your car goes right. You assume it will do this EVERY TIME. You don't assign a probability to it, because there would be no way to do so. Out of, say, five million turns, it has turned right five million times...But what about all the possible future turns? The probability of turning right in the five million past turns was 1. It always turned right in the past. Using induction, we assume the same for the future, with the same probability of 1.

"Newton's process, in which hypothetical physical laws are derived from observation, which laws in turn make predictions which are then tested, is not reducible to simple enumerative induction"

The fact that it makes testable predictions is what makes it more than "simple enumerative induction", right?

Well, wouldn't the "testing" of the swan theory be the prediction that no swan would be a color other than white? What makes you think this isn't a specific prediction, or what that couldn't be tested with further observation?

Boorite--

Basically, what I'm getting from you is you're saying the scientific inductive inferences I've mentioned are not instances of "enumerative induction" because they make predictions that can be falsified.

But what makes you think the swan theory does not make a prediction (there will be no observed black swans) or that it can't be falsified?

I've tried to tell you why it could be considered a scientific inference. Why don't you think it is one? What is it about the swan inference that is so unscientific?

How are the predictions validated, if not with "enumerative induction"?

The hypothetical laws derived from observation--based on induction. They universalize a few observations, using enumerative induction.

The laws then generate predictions, which are also tested--they are tested by the use of enumerative induction. The more observations support the prediction, the better we can feel about the strength of the theory.

Are you sure it's not reducible to "simple enumerative induction"? It seems like that's exactly what I've done here.

quote:

---

Basically, what I'm getting from you is you're saying the scientific inductive inferences I've mentioned are not instances of "enumerative induction" because they make predictions that can be falsified.

---

quote:

---

Now, with the swan example, if I observed 5000 white swans, and no black swans, and I had no idea how many total swans there are...how would I assign a probability to this? The reason that inductive arguments generalize claims like this is because it would be IMPOSSIBLE to assign an accurate probability.

---

Boorite--

You were correct about the speed of light thing, of course.

Basically, the only point I'm trying to make is that science uses pretty much all forms of induction--it is only concerned with finding justifiable beliefs. Then the question becomes, can enumerative induction lead to justifiable beliefs? I say yes. It may not be as complex as other methods of induction, but if I were to observe a billion white swans, none of them any other color, I would find it a very justified belief to infer that no swans were black. Entailed in this, because it is based on induction, is its uncertainty. It is only "probable" that no swans are black, but it seems redundant to say that if I have already outlines that I understand that all forms of induction are improbable.

But yes, you are right about Newton's laws and the constant, as I have seen from other reading.

Tasty:

Any chance you'll continue with me in the following dialectic?

If father time is a metaphor for time itself, then yes. If father time is some old man with a beard who somehow controls time, then no.

What if God is a metaphor for (or anthropomorphization of) natural processes? Then yes? Or do we use a different standard for God than for Father Time?

If you mean that the Earth is my mother in that I am a creature that was born on it and sustained by the things on it, then yes. If you mean that it is literally a mother that has thoughts and feelings and cares about me, then no.

Not literally, we agree. Then given God as metaphor for unspecified or poorly-articulated or even unarticulable natural processes, could it be true that God is one's Father or Lord, in that one might receive insight or advice or instruction from It?

If you mean "death" by the grim reaper, then yes. If you mean "some skeleton in a robe", then no.

Then will God appear if you seek Him?

The fictional character called Romeo did indeed commit suicide.

How could something that doesn't exist do anything?

---
What others say about boorite!

quote:

---

You were correct about the speed of light thing, of course.

---

[IMG]http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b5/boorite/spirit.jpg[/IMG]

---
What others say about boorite!

---
What others say about boorite!

that's kind of like saying "exact estimate" or "military intelligence"

---
what if nigger meant kite

quote:

---

quote:

---

Well...

...I'm gone for five days and miss all this?

Special thanks goes to Influenza.

This is going to take forever to read..

---

here, i'll sum it up for you, poster of thong devil chick:

rabble rabble god rabble scientific method rabble rabble negative proof rabble rabble speed of light...

WARNING! SPOILER AHEAD!

...rabble rabble orgy rabble rabble awkward silence the next day rabble rabble regret rabble

---

[IMG]http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c12/ivytheplant/07.gif[/IMG]

---
What others say about boorite!