Nice gloss of Goodman. But it also suggests a problem with philosophy: the need to make *demonstrably true* statements. Induction in mathematics is a proof technique. When applied to reality it doesn't work because the axiom of induction isn't available for reality. But then notion of a *true statement* as applied to *reality *is a bit of a stretch anyway. Yet philosophers keep insisting that it's important to make statements that can be shown to be *true*. But that's a cause lost before one even begins because there is no real connection between words and things -- only imagined connections.
*-- Russ* On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Douglas Roberts <d...@parrot-farm.net>wrote: > Very clever. > > --Doug > > > On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Nicholas Thompson < > nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote: > >> Doug wrote **** >> >> ** ** >> >> In retrospect, I suppose I do have faith in one other fairly immutable >> quality -- the accuracy of my bullshit detector **** >> >> ** ** >> >> Well, why not. it’s always worked in the past …. . **** >> >> ** ** >> >> Nick **** >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On >> Behalf Of *Douglas Roberts >> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 27, 2012 2:55 PM >> >> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Thanks, Nick, you describe an interesting way of establishing a life-view. >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> Not quite sure how to answer, except to say that if I have faith in >> anything, it is in evidence. If I have accrued a sufficient pile of >> evidence that supports a conclusion about some observation, then I'll >> probably believe it. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> If my collected evidence is such that the inescapable conclusion is that >> nothing is constant, then I suppose I'd eventually come around to believe >> that, so long as I had a constant framework from which to corroborate and >> verify the inconsistencies. Otherwise, I'd continue to look for the >> missing pieces of the puzzle (a reference to the cosmological artifacts I >> sent you earlier).**** >> >> ** ** >> >> As to religion: for me it's a big "No thank you" to any cult mindthink >> that requires brainless acceptance of a supernatural >> homo-centric benevolent/malevolent boogyman. And that goes double for one >> particular cult whose belief system is predicated upon >> "hieroglyph"-inscribed disappearing golden tablets. Oh, and I guess that >> goes triple for any cult that attempts to dictate what kind of skivies I >> must wear to become a member of the club. I guess you could say that it >> would take a *miracle* to get me to assent to becoming a member of any >> of the existing flocks of theist-following sheep out there.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> In retrospect, I suppose I do have faith in one other fairly immutable >> quality -- the accuracy of my bullshit detector.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> --Doug**** >> >> ** ** >> >> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Nicholas Thompson < >> nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:**** >> >> Dear Doug, **** >> >> **** >> >> I am afraid that the black hole example is already too technologically >> dense for me, so I am going to punt on the project of luring you inside my >> walls and slaughtering you there, and just out-right tell you what I think >> **** >> >> . **** >> >> The argument began with my detecting in you (perhaps wrongly) the belief >> that you, unlike the religious, can get along without some sort of faith in >> your life. Most people I have known in the past who have reached this >> conclusion have done so through their confidence in induction. “What do I >> need with faith if I can just collect the evidence and act on it?’ And the >> answer is that without faith of some sort, there is no foundation for >> induction. **** >> >> **** >> >> The argument for this position is famously from Hume. A version of it is >> colorfully laid out by Nelson Goodman in his *The New Riddle of >> Induction*. So let’s say, I want to learn if grass is green. My >> religious buddy says, “Look in the Bible. I am sure it’s in there >> somewhere.’ My atheist buddy says, “nonsense, go out and look at the >> grass.” I’m an atheist, so I go out and start collecting samples of >> grass. I collect a hundred samples and I bring them back in announce that >> I am satisfied that all grass is green. At which point my religious buddy >> says, No, No, you have no evidence there that Grass is green. “All you >> have is evidence that grass is grue.” “Grue!?” I say. “What’s Grue?”**** >> >> **** >> >> Charitably forgoing the opportunity to ask, “I dunno. What’s Grue with >> you?” my religious buddy simply says, “It’s the property of being Green >> until your last measurement, and Blue thereafter. “ **** >> >> **** >> >> “Nonsense,” I reply. “What kind of a property is THAT? Nature doesn’t >> HAVE properties like that. **** >> >> **** >> >> “Perhaps that’s been true”, he replies, *but only up till now*!”**** >> >> **** >> >> In other words, our belief in induction is based on our plausible but >> unfounded belief in induction, i.e., faith. **** >> >> **** >> >> Nick **** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On >> Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella >> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 11:40 AM >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way**** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> This is a red herring. The argument for dark matter/energy need not be >> inductive. The inductive form is:**** >> >> **** >> >> o we've defined the set based on the laws of physics we've observed o >> everything is in this set o gravity seems stronger/weaker than predicted in >> some contexts**** >> >> .: there are unobserved members of the set: dark matter and energy.**** >> >> **** >> >> A non-inductive argument for dark matter/energy is just as valid:**** >> >> **** >> >> o the model we've induced is not completely consistent with the data o >> the laws characterize everything we've encountered so far**** >> >> .: there must be something we haven't encountered that will refine the >> laws.**** >> >> **** >> >> No induction is necessary to motivate a hypothesis for some form of >> matter that's imprecisely or inaccurately described by the laws we've, so >> far, induced. But parsimony suggests that a theory that assumes it's >> complete is more testable than a theory with metaphysical holes in it.*** >> * >> >> So, the argument for dark matter _seems_ inductive, even though it's >> not. Only someone who assumes our laws are complete (fully refined) would >> think the argument is inductive. My sample is small. But I don't know of >> any physicists or cosmologists who think our laws cannot be modified.**** >> >> **** >> >> I.e. it's naive to assume identity between a scientific theory and the >> reasoning surrounding the pursuit of a scientific theory.**** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> Douglas Roberts wrote at 03/24/2012 03:08 PM:**** >> >> > There's also an interesting "dark matter" inference that has found its >> **** >> >> > way into grudging cosmological acceptance. This time the role of the * >> *** >> >> > inferred substance is to keep galaxies from flying apart, as it has *** >> * >> >> > recently been observed that based on the amount of their measurable, ** >> ** >> >> > observable mass and rotational velocities, they should flung their **** >> >> > stars off ages ago.**** >> >> > **** >> >> > --Doug**** >> >> > **** >> >> > **** >> >> > On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Douglas Roberts <d...@parrot-farm.net >> **** >> >> > <mailto:d...@parrot-farm.net <d...@parrot-farm.net>>> wrote:**** >> >> > **** >> >> > I feel that I am being drawn in to an enemy encampment, but:**** >> >> > **** >> >> > Developing a proof would be far better than choosing to rely**** >> >> > on inference, if the goal is to develop a larger-scale understanding >> **** >> >> > of a system.**** >> >> > **** >> >> > Take "dark energy" as an example. Its presence is inferred from*** >> * >> >> > having observed that the rate of expansion of the observable**** >> >> > universe began to accelerate relatively recently, on a cosmological >> **** >> >> > time scale. In response to this, the cosmologists have inferred the >> **** >> >> > existence of a mysterious energy with magical gravitational**** >> >> > repulsive properties as a means to explain away an otherwise**** >> >> > inexplicable observation. A much more satisfying approach will be* >> *** >> >> > to develop a sufficient understanding of the underlying physics of* >> *** >> >> > our universe from which a rigorous proof of the phenomenon could be >> **** >> >> > derived.**** >> >> > **** >> >> > But, without that understanding, we are left with cosmological**** >> >> > "magic dust", instead of a real understanding of the observed >> dynamics.**** >> >> > **** >> >> > --Doug**** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> --**** >> >> glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com**** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> ============================================================**** >> >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv**** >> >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College**** >> >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org**** >> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org**** >> >> >> >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> -- >> Doug Roberts >> drobe...@rti.org >> d...@parrot-farm.net**** >> >> http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins**** >> >> >> 505-455-7333 - Office >> 505-670-8195 - Cell**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >> > > > > -- > Doug Roberts > drobe...@rti.org > d...@parrot-farm.net > http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins > <http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins> > 505-455-7333 - Office > 505-670-8195 - Cell > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
