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

Reply via email to