Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Induction.

muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 8:43:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
What good is it? The only use I can see in it, is ratifying what we already know. Is there another use of induction, that I am not seeing?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 8:49:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
You should learn about the scientific method some-time. Does wonders ;)
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 8:49:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Inductive reasoning is the process by which one ties together and analyses empirical data to make conclusions, while recognizing the fact that said conclusions are not necessarily true.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 8:54:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Take a murder investigation, for example. The investigators takes what's known (the evidence), and uses inductive reasoning to make predictions based on the evidence. I don't understand how you don't see the uses.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 9:04:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 8:49:07 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
You should learn about the scientific method some-time. Does wonders ;)

I am familiar with the scientific method....
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 9:07:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 9:04:15 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/21/2013 8:49:07 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
You should learn about the scientific method some-time. Does wonders ;)

I am familiar with the scientific method....

Why doesn't that familiarity translate into you being cognizant of the most underlying practice in all of science?
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 9:07:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 8:54:08 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Take a murder investigation, for example. The investigators takes what's known (the evidence), and uses inductive reasoning to make predictions based on the evidence. I don't understand how you don't see the uses.

I should have been more clear, because this is exactly what I meant by 'ratifying what we already know'. It just allows us to connect the dots between different pieces of a puzzle. But it is barely useful in that respect, as there is no guarantee that the conclusion you get will be right.

For instance, say I have the number sequence 1 2 3. Inductive thinking leads to one believing 4 is the next number, but it could be literally anything.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 9:08:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 9:07:51 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/21/2013 9:04:15 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/21/2013 8:49:07 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
You should learn about the scientific method some-time. Does wonders ;)

I am familiar with the scientific method....

Why doesn't that familiarity translate into you being cognizant of the most underlying practice in all of science?

*uses of the most....
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 9:10:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 9:07:51 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/21/2013 8:54:08 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Take a murder investigation, for example. The investigators takes what's known (the evidence), and uses inductive reasoning to make predictions based on the evidence. I don't understand how you don't see the uses.

I should have been more clear, because this is exactly what I meant by 'ratifying what we already know'. It just allows us to connect the dots between different pieces of a puzzle. But it is barely useful in that respect, as there is no guarantee that the conclusion you get will be right.

For instance, say I have the number sequence 1 2 3. Inductive thinking leads to one believing 4 is the next number, but it could be literally anything.

" It just allows us to connect the dots between different pieces of a puzzle. But it is barely useful in that respect, as there is no guarantee that the conclusion you get will be right."

It's the only path to truth we have. Can you offer an alternative?
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 9:16:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 9:07:51 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/21/2013 9:04:15 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/21/2013 8:49:07 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
You should learn about the scientific method some-time. Does wonders ;)

I am familiar with the scientific method....

Why doesn't that familiarity translate into you being cognizant of the most underlying practice in all of science?

But induction doesn't really tell us anything. It just connects the dots.

For instance, I release a ball, it falls to the ground at 9.8m per second per second. And I could go around doing this, and the results will be the same. Inductive thinking leads to the conclusion that this is a constant. But what about when you do it at the equator? Then it falls slower. Inductive thinking isn't very useful. It just allows us to make connections that may not actually exist.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 9:19:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 9:16:46 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/21/2013 9:07:51 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/21/2013 9:04:15 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/21/2013 8:49:07 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
You should learn about the scientific method some-time. Does wonders ;)

I am familiar with the scientific method....

Why doesn't that familiarity translate into you being cognizant of the most underlying practice in all of science?


But induction doesn't really tell us anything. It just connects the dots.

For instance, I release a ball, it falls to the ground at 9.8m per second per second. And I could go around doing this, and the results will be the same. Inductive thinking leads to the conclusion that this is a constant. But what about when you do it at the equator? Then it falls slower. Inductive thinking isn't very useful. It just allows us to make connections that may not actually exist.

The dots don't speak for themselves... that's why we need to analyse them. And your example only shows that inductive reasoning without all the facts leads to faulty conclusion. Wanna know what eventually lead to the correct conclusion that you use as a standard to smear early inductive reasoning? Inductive reasoning.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 9:20:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 9:10:07 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/21/2013 9:07:51 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/21/2013 8:54:08 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Take a murder investigation, for example. The investigators takes what's known (the evidence), and uses inductive reasoning to make predictions based on the evidence. I don't understand how you don't see the uses.

I should have been more clear, because this is exactly what I meant by 'ratifying what we already know'. It just allows us to connect the dots between different pieces of a puzzle. But it is barely useful in that respect, as there is no guarantee that the conclusion you get will be right.

For instance, say I have the number sequence 1 2 3. Inductive thinking leads to one believing 4 is the next number, but it could be literally anything.

" It just allows us to connect the dots between different pieces of a puzzle. But it is barely useful in that respect, as there is no guarantee that the conclusion you get will be right."

It's the only path to truth we have. Can you offer an alternative?

What.......
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 12:03:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The scientific method is part of a larger picture which also includes deductive reasoning as well. Simply isolating induction for criticism is as useful as taking an engine out of a car and criticizing how you can't drive it.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 2:08:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 12:03:32 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
The scientific method is part of a larger picture which also includes deductive reasoning as well. Simply isolating induction for criticism is as useful as taking an engine out of a car and criticizing how you can't drive it.

This analogy would be valid, if I was criticizing an ideology, but in doing so I removed a key point of it. But since I am criticizing one single philosophical method, with no parts removed, this analogy is invalid.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 5:08:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Induction is considered different than deduction.

But it can also be considered this deduction: "Things will be consistent with the pattern I have noticed unless I have reason to think otherwise".

Inductive reasoning missing huge chunks of data can still be true; we knew the sun rose in the west. If we simply assumed there was no consistency, rather than assuming there was, we would have had no way do discover "Why the sun arbitrarily comes up somewhere". Instead, we asked "Why does it always come up in the west?" Now, of course, we had lots of experience of it coming up in the west, but that experience was amplified by the assumption that it hadn't just arbitrarily risen in the west, but rather that there was a reason for the consistency.

Lightning strikes following certain rules of electrical activity. Part of how we discovered what those rules are (and they are merely inductive rules), was to assume that there must be a reason for the consistency.

If we find that the laws of physics are only arbitrarily present, it will shake the foundation of science. But until we do so, it has been quite useful.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 8:57:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 8:43:53 AM, muzebreak wrote:
What good is it? The only use I can see in it, is ratifying what we already know. Is there another use of induction, that I am not seeing?

It comes in prtty handy if you want to live in the real world.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 9:12:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 9:04:15 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/21/2013 8:49:07 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
You should learn about the scientific method some-time. Does wonders ;)

I am familiar with the scientific method....

Not that familiar, or you wouldn't be asking what good induction is, you can't do science without it. You'd also know it isn't about "ratifying what we already know", it's how we know what we know.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 9:35:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 2:08:24 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/21/2013 12:03:32 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
The scientific method is part of a larger picture which also includes deductive reasoning as well. Simply isolating induction for criticism is as useful as taking an engine out of a car and criticizing how you can't drive it.

This analogy would be valid, if I was criticizing an ideology, but in doing so I removed a key point of it. But since I am criticizing one single philosophical method, with no parts removed, this analogy is invalid.

Induction means that you try something and then remember what happened. I can't figure out what problem you have with this method, and I furthermore can't figure out what possible utility there would be of rejecting it. If you want to take on science then there are much more effective ways, like criticizing how we interpret the data we get. At the end of the day, what does your argument have to do with the price of milk?
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 12:10:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 8:43:53 AM, muzebreak wrote:
What good is it? The only use I can see in it, is ratifying what we already know.

pretty sure most of the stuff you already knowthat induction ratifies... You originally came to know through induction...

maybe not some stuff.. but most stuff.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 5:22:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 5:08:33 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Induction is considered different than deduction.

But it can also be considered this deduction: "Things will be consistent with the pattern I have noticed unless I have reason to think otherwise".

Inductive reasoning missing huge chunks of data can still be true; we knew the sun rose in the west. If we simply assumed there was no consistency, rather than assuming there was, we would have had no way do discover "Why the sun arbitrarily comes up somewhere". Instead, we asked "Why does it always come up in the west?" Now, of course, we had lots of experience of it coming up in the west, but that experience was amplified by the assumption that it hadn't just arbitrarily risen in the west, but rather that there was a reason for the consistency.

Lightning strikes following certain rules of electrical activity. Part of how we discovered what those rules are (and they are merely inductive rules), was to assume that there must be a reason for the consistency.

If we find that the laws of physics are only arbitrarily present, it will shake the foundation of science. But until we do so, it has been quite useful.

Doesn't the sun rise in the east?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 10:14:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 9:35:03 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 4/21/2013 2:08:24 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/21/2013 12:03:32 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
The scientific method is part of a larger picture which also includes deductive reasoning as well. Simply isolating induction for criticism is as useful as taking an engine out of a car and criticizing how you can't drive it.

This analogy would be valid, if I was criticizing an ideology, but in doing so I removed a key point of it. But since I am criticizing one single philosophical method, with no parts removed, this analogy is invalid.

Induction means that you try something and then remember what happened. I can't figure out what problem you have with this method, and I furthermore can't figure out what possible utility there would be of rejecting it. If you want to take on science then there are much more effective ways, like criticizing how we interpret the data we get. At the end of the day, what does your argument have to do with the price of milk?

I'm not arguing against induction, I'm just stating that I don't find it particularly useful. It has its uses, but they aren't far and wide.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 10:15:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 9:12:27 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/21/2013 9:04:15 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/21/2013 8:49:07 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
You should learn about the scientific method some-time. Does wonders ;)

I am familiar with the scientific method....

Not that familiar, or you wouldn't be asking what good induction is, you can't do science without it. You'd also know it isn't about "ratifying what we already know", it's how we know what we know.

I don't appreciate people strawmanning my arguments, so how's about you fvck off.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 10:16:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 5:22:47 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/21/2013 5:08:33 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Induction is considered different than deduction.

But it can also be considered this deduction: "Things will be consistent with the pattern I have noticed unless I have reason to think otherwise".

Inductive reasoning missing huge chunks of data can still be true; we knew the sun rose in the west. If we simply assumed there was no consistency, rather than assuming there was, we would have had no way do discover "Why the sun arbitrarily comes up somewhere". Instead, we asked "Why does it always come up in the west?" Now, of course, we had lots of experience of it coming up in the west, but that experience was amplified by the assumption that it hadn't just arbitrarily risen in the west, but rather that there was a reason for the consistency.

Lightning strikes following certain rules of electrical activity. Part of how we discovered what those rules are (and they are merely inductive rules), was to assume that there must be a reason for the consistency.

If we find that the laws of physics are only arbitrarily present, it will shake the foundation of science. But until we do so, it has been quite useful.

Doesn't the sun rise in the east?

That it does. I think originally had set, then changed it to rise, then didn't remember I had done so. Because I am dumb.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 10:18:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 10:14:03 AM, muzebreak wrote:

I'm not arguing against induction, I'm just stating that I don't find it particularly useful. It has its uses, but they aren't far and wide.

Really? Science, and certainly all of physics, is entirely based on induction. Because X has happened, X will continue to happen. In fact, most decisions you make day-to-day are likely based on a thought process that includes induction.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 2:10:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 8:43:53 AM, muzebreak wrote:
What good is it?

It's where knowledge comes from. If you don't like knowledge, then we can't help you.

The only use I can see in it, is ratifying what we already know.

How do you think we got to already know it? Not from deduction. And those two, induction and deduction, are all we have.

Is there another use of induction, that I am not seeing?

Apparently.

Will the sun rise tomorrow? Will your house be where you left it? Will eating alleviate your hunger? If you liked kissing that last girl, will you probably like kissing the next one? If you drop something, will it fall down, or up? Are all men mortal? Is Socrates a man? Should you have wings on your airplane?

These are all inductive questions. Without induction, you know, essentially, nothing.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 2:43:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 10:15:13 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/21/2013 9:12:27 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/21/2013 9:04:15 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/21/2013 8:49:07 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
You should learn about the scientific method some-time. Does wonders ;)

I am familiar with the scientific method....

Not that familiar, or you wouldn't be asking what good induction is, you can't do science without it. You'd also know it isn't about "ratifying what we already know", it's how we know what we know.

I don't appreciate people strawmanning my arguments,

You don't have an argument, or familiarity with the scientific method, so I didn't strawman anything, just pointing out the obvious.

so how's about you fvck off.

No thank you...how about you get a clue.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 2:43:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 2:10:40 PM, wiploc wrote:
At 4/21/2013 8:43:53 AM, muzebreak wrote:
What good is it?

It's where knowledge comes from. If you don't like knowledge, then we can't help you.

No, it is one of many sources of knowledge.


The only use I can see in it, is ratifying what we already know.

How do you think we got to already know it? Not from deduction. And those two, induction and deduction, are all we have.

Abduction: the process of creating explanatory hypotheses.
Analogical Reasoning: relating things to novel other situations.
Cause-and-Effect Reasoning: showing causes and resulting effect.
Cause-to-Effects Reasoning: starting from the cause and going forward.
Effects-to-Cause Reasoning: starting from the effect and working backward.
The Bradford Hill Criteria: for cause and effect in medical diagnosis.
Comparative Reasoning: comparing one thing against another.
Conditional Reasoning: using if...then...
Criteria Reasoning: comparing against established criteria.
Decompositional Reasoning: understand the parts to understand the whole.
Deductive Reasoning: starting from the general rule and moving to specifics.
Exemplar Reasoning: using an example.
Inductive Reasoning: starting from specifics and deriving a general rule.
Modal Logic: arguing about necessity and possibility.
Pros-vs-cons Reasoning: using arguments both for and against a case.
Residue Reasoning: Removing first what is not logical.
Set-based Reasoning: based on categories and membership relationships.
Systemic Reasoning: the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
Syllogistic Reasoning: drawing conclusions from premises.
Traditional Logic: assuming premises are correct.

Abduction is my personal favorite, as it is what Holmes used for the most part.


Is there another use of induction, that I am not seeing?

Apparently.

Or not, because you have yet to state it.


Will the sun rise tomorrow? Will your house be where you left it? Will eating alleviate your hunger? If you liked kissing that last girl, will you probably like kissing the next one? If you drop something, will it fall down, or up? Are all men mortal? Is Socrates a man? Should you have wings on your airplane?

These are all inductive questions. Without induction, you know, essentially, nothing.

None of those require induction to be answered, it is simply a good method for getting such an answer.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 2:51:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 9:16:46 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/21/2013 9:07:51 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/21/2013 9:04:15 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/21/2013 8:49:07 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
You should learn about the scientific method some-time. Does wonders ;)

I am familiar with the scientific method....

Why doesn't that familiarity translate into you being cognizant of the most underlying practice in all of science?


But induction doesn't really tell us anything. It just connects the dots.

It tells us the dots are connected and how they connect, without that we don't know anything. Induction is why you think pressing the "s" key will make an "s" appear when you typed this post. Maybe the next time you press the "s" key a "w" will appear, but induction is a guide to your actions, and if I was you, when you want to type the word science, start with the "s" key.

For instance, I release a ball, it falls to the ground at 9.8m per second per second. And I could go around doing this, and the results will be the same. Inductive thinking leads to the conclusion that this is a constant. But what about when you do it at the equator? Then it falls slower. Inductive thinking isn't very useful. It just allows us to make connections that may not actually exist.

It's very useful because it's also how we make the connections that do exist.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 5:16:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 8:43:53 AM, muzebreak wrote:
What good is it? The only use I can see in it, is ratifying what we already know. Is there another use of induction, that I am not seeing?

Charging batteries.