Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/
The problem of induction concerns inductive reasoning and therefore is of extreme importance to the scientific materialist's worldview. If you cannot deductively solve the problem of induction, then the scientific method has no basis. Inductive reasoning is the ability to generalize from specific events to the formulation of laws. The problem, as laid out by Hume, is as follows:
All observed Fs have also been Gs,
and
a is an F,
do not imply
a is a G.
It is false that “instances of which we have had no experience must resemble those of which we have had experience” (EHU, 89).
So what justifies or grounds our ability to reason inductively? How do you know every electron behaves like the ones we've observed? How do you know that the electrons you've observed behave the same way when you're not observing them? How do you know gravity exists on other planets? What allows us to generalize from our observations here to the events on other planets millions of years ago?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
The answer is simple but you probably won't like it.
It is deal with by postulating (by fiat) the principle of relativity. I have little doubt we will hear the armchair philosophers scream that you can't do it by postulate; but this is one of the ways that science makes advances. You find a principle that seems to hold in every example and then you elevate it to a postulate to see what you can deduce from that. This particular postulate has held up well for several hundred years.
That begs the question.
If science was in the business of proving thing, this question begging would be a huge problem. Luckily science is not in this business.
So suppose a cat gets fed every morning at 6am. It is constantly fed at this time for 5 years. Every day. 6am sharp. If this cat used it's inductive reasoning it might come to the conclusion that this will definitely happen every day because it has held up for the past 5 years. But one day the owner of the cat gets a new job and is asleep at 6am and doesn't wake up till noon to feed his cat.
I don't think you CAN prove it by a postulate. You might be able to have some degree of confidence in it however. You can call me an "armchair philosopher" all you want, but this is just a poisoning of the well.
Of course you are right. but again, (I know our posts probably got crossed) science is not in the proving business.
Right, but how do you know science has the capacity to demonstrate any level of truth.
I just told you science is not in the proving business. That means it is not in the truth business either.
You might as well ask what octane gasoline McDonalds sells at their restaurant chain. Newflash: McDonald’s doesn't sell gasoline at their restaurants.
So tell us please... if science cannot "demonstrate any level of truth", what can? I am guessing your answer is myths, fables, magic, and other nonsense in an old book i like to read that was written by bronze age peasants a couple of thousand years ago in the middle east. Disproving something about science does not strengthen any of your prime mover claims.
You are ignoring a basic rule of science. Eliminate all variables. The cat in your little scenario has new data to contend with and thus had failed to account for it.
Thanks for proving a problem of inductive reasoning.
Or better yet. You might ask: "how do you know that ratchet in your tool box will work the next time you need it". Well I don't know that it will work next time. If it doesn't work I will fix it or replace it. It is how things get done in the real world. The mechanic doesn't worry about "reasonable reasons" or proving that the wrench will work, he just tries it and if it fails he deals with the failure. That is how science is done as well.
But you must use reason for this. You're talking only in a practical sense of "If it doesn't work try something else". But that isn't the purpose of the question being asked in the OP. It's asking if science is reliable in the first place by questioning it's method. Induction. This is where the philosophy of Science comes in to play.
Consider the following funny scenario. Person A and B both have flat tires.Person A starts out by attempting to write an airtight formal proof that the jack and lug wrench are necessary and sufficient for changing the tire. Meanwhile Person B just changes the tire with the jack and wrench. As person B is driving away, person A puts down his pencil and paper and yells "you must use reason for this!" while chasing after Person B's car.
I think I know what you want. You want us to give you a proof that science is reliable. Well keep waiting because the only proof you are going to get is in the pudding.
Again, this is a fallacy of pragmatism. Just because something is practical or works for you doesn't mean that you can say that science is justified. Or as you put, it does not mean the proof is in the pudding. Also even by your example, the man who fixed the car had to use reason to come to the conclusion he needed to start working on his car. Your scenario is also a strawman of what's going on and being said. No one is saying you should use philosophy to fix your car. That isn't the point of philosophy.
Sauron:
You are confusing deductive reasoning with inductive reasoning. In the real world you deal with probabilities unless you stick to mathematics. To say that science is not justified despite its consistent and phenomenal success is incomprehensible. Maybe you should define what you mean by "justified."
Oops! I thought you were addressing my recent post about a car. So, I left the part that still applies.
I'm not confusing deducting and inductive reasoning. My example with the cat is inductive. I can phrase it as follows. The Cat receives food everyday at 6am sharp with no exceptions for 5 years. Therefore the cat will receive food everyday at 6am sharp. This is inductive
You guys keep using "In the real world" but you're just dodging the question. You're also assuming the truth of your world view with the statement. Implying that philosophy is not part of "The real world" but just a mere fiction. So I'll ask you this within your own framework, what is the probability that science is completely bogus? If you do not know, how do you justify it other than by the pragmatic fallacy? If you DO know, how did you arrive at the conclusion.
@Nyarlothotep:
You're making a strawman. Again.
Sauron:
Inductive reasoning works just fine! We didn't get to the moon by guess and by golly! Keep in mind that inductive reasoning doesn't deal in certainty, so your pragmatic fallacy is meaningless. Inductive reasoning deals in probabilities. It is a statistics-based reasoning and, yes, it can fail even as a champion poker player can lose a round or two. So what?
Who are you going to bet on, the world poker champion or some amateur that recently learned the game? The amateur could get fantastic hands every time and beat the champion. But are you going to risk you life savings on that outcome? If not, then you are affirming the value of inductive reasoning. If yes, then I have a bridge on the East Coast that you might want to buy.
Not only does inductive reasoning work extremely well, as may be attested by both practical examples and the depth of understanding science has given us, but it is the only tool you have for learning about the makeup of the real world! Deductive reasoning cannot exceed what is already assumed in its premises. Trying to match its premises to the real world is an exercise in inductive reasoning, thereby scattering any hope of certainty. Indeed, in those pure, boot-strap, deductive systems that take no look at reality, usually conjured up to prove a deity, the premises are ultimately arbitrary. No atheist has any need to buy into god-loaded premises in such systems.
Sorry, it's an uncertain world where probabilities and statistics rule. If you want certainty, you will have to take up mathematics, chess, or some other system of pure logic. Statistical inferences are tested by statistical results.
Asking for the probability that science is completely bogus is a rather useless question. That's like asking for the probability that you might be living in a matrix. (Check out a DVD for the movie "The Matrix.") Does anyone stay up late at night worrying about it?
There are two accepted ways to calculate probabilities. 1) You can create a model which you hope is sufficiently accurate and do the math. 2) You can run trials for the event (those that can be repeated) until you build up a sound statistical evaluation of the probability. You seem to be trying to negate the worth of the latter method, which puts you at odds with probability calculus.
It is a sad tragedy, that the most profound philosophers were unable to construct an argument that proved their belief that the food they see on their plate really exists was justified; and then starved to death. Leaving only the less profound philosophers and the rest of us, who gave up on this "requirement" and just ate the food anyway.
science and cosmology builds models if they work fine If not its back to the drawing board, simply as that they conduct an experiment and if it works then fine.I don`t see where philosophy gets in the way of science,In fact a lot of times it doesn`t have anything to do with science.
But the question is how you have any epistemology that allows you to verify what works.
RadicalWhiggery:
Once you accept that knowledge about the arrangement of our universe is in terms of probability, the answer is not that difficult. You look at an event and you look at the statistics for previously successful explanations of that event and choose the most probable explanation. If your car dies, you first check the battery to see if it is tightly connected and fully charged. You don't probe the wiring looking for possible breaks in the middle of the wire. So, it does work but it is a statistical thing.
"Once you accept that knowledge about the arrangement of our universe is in terms of probability, the answer is not that difficult."
And you accept this how? What justifies this claim? Is it just probably true? My point is that you have to justify a method if you're going to claim it has any reliability.
Why would you have to justify the reliability of a method if that method demonstrates reliability?
do you know that the scientific method of induction can be proven wrong.Since it makes broad generalizations from specific observations.Inductive reasoning allows for the conclusion to be false.
RadicalWhiggery:
The verification is statistical. If you wish to dismiss the power of the calculus of probabilities, then you lose me as a customer. Certainty just isn't in the cards unless you are doing mathematics. How do you know that your whole concept of a spherical earth isn't an illusion, that you are actually living on a flat earth? Can you even verify that you are living on a spherical earth? If you decide that inductive reasoning has no connection to truth, then you are out of luck since that is the only route to knowing how our world functions. It's use it or give up any knowledge about reality short of your own consciousness (assuming that I'm not talking to a robot!).
RadicalWhiggery:
Nobody in their right mind would claim that inductive reasoning confers certainty! The fact is that science works wonderfully well, meaning that the scientific method works wonderfully well. We use inductive reason every day to solve our problems, because it works. The plain fact is that there is no way to be absolutely certain about the makeup of the world of atoms and energy. If you want absolute certainty, stick to mathematics. If you want to know something about the makeup of the real world, then certainty is lost. It's a world of probabilities.
What do you mean science works well? Toward what goal?
Goals : Mapping the genome and the human brain, detecting the Higgs Boson, curing disease, creating sustainable forms of energy production, detectiing gravity waves and dark matter, AI, disease and insect resistant plants, reversing global warming, creating vaccines and medicines, living longer and healthier, how to feed 10 billion people, genetic approaches to curing cancer and Alzheimers disease, restoring eye sight, early storm and earthquake detection and warning systems, etc.
First of all, how did you determine that these things even exist? How do you know humans have a genome? How do you know we have brains? How do you know the Higgs Boson exists? Second, why are you setting them as your goals?
They are not my goals. They are goals of science. I know I have a brain because philosophy has not rendered mine into mush.
Pages