Re: Addressing Scientific Reductionism



[moderator's note: Fellas, this is perilously close to
irrelevant. Either take it to email or make the connection
to evolutionary biology more explicit. - JAH]

John Edser wrote:
"Phil Roberts, Jr." philrob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:-

You're the only one who thinks a reduction achieved via an
inductive inference constitutes an increase in complexity.

JE:-
An inductive inference is made from the particular to the general, e.g. one
or two particular swans happen to be white. A scientifically valid inductive
inference can now be made that all swans are white. This induction is
massively more complex that any one particular swan or even any sub set of
swans simply because it refers to ALL swans.

Your view of the world has become simpler because you've reduced the
"massively complex" to a simple idea, i.e., all swans share
property X.

The usefulness of such an
induction to the sciences is quite clear because this inductive inference
provides no escape route: just one black swan refutes the induction entirely
forcing an entire rethink of the question of what is a swan. For this reason
it is misleading in the extreme to label an induction "reductive" because an
inductive inference provides the opposite event: an expansion of complexity.

No. You've purchased an increase in simplicity in your world view
at the price of an increase in uncertainty precisely because
you've reduced complexity to something simple and there is
always the possibility that you have made things TOO SIMPLE.

"I want things as simple as possible, but not one bit
simpler" (A. Einstein).

Has anyone ever told you you have a remarkable talent for
obfiscation? :)

JE:-
I assume you meant "obfuscation".

As if you didn't know. More obfiscation Johnny. More obfiscation.

My standard reply is that JUST MAYBE, the
opposing argument is obscuring something and not myself.

That's certainly possible, but you continue to insist you
are right long after everyone else has come to realize
that you're beating a dead horse. This conversation
should have ended with my first clarification.

You actually know this yourself, its just that you keep hoping
that by some miracle all your verbal gymnastics will eventually
obscure things sufficiently that your lack of understanding
on this issue will not seem quite so crystal clear as it
intially appeared. Your objective in the past two posts has
been to save face rather than to come to a clearer understanding
of the nature of induction. And that's why it has become so
tedious and boring and why you and I are probably the only one's
reading these posts.

IOW you must always
remain skeptical of your own proposition. So how does any reasonable and
impartial observer tell who is obscuring what? My solution is to insist that
any proposition remain 100% SELF CONSISTENT.

Logically consistent is good. But with the advent of the theory
of natural selection and the demise of Newtonian mechanics, there
has been a growing consensus that the hallmark of a good scientific
induction is the extent to which it maximizes explanatory coherence,
i.e., the extent to which it covers the greatest range of facts in
the most elegant fashion possible. Even exceptions are often
tolerated.

Your argument that an inductive
inference is less complex than a particular of that induced class is not
just evasive it is empirically wrong.


Are you saying the standard use of this term among epistemologists
and logicians is ass backwards? Or are you saying that I am out of
touch with the standard use of the term?

If you are prepared to use the example of the revised central dogma of
biochemistry at least we can compare our opposing ways of understanding this
key concept for evolutionary theory without either of us obscuring anything.
I have previously provided my interpretation so please provide yours.


I'm not because of an inductive inference. On innumerable occasions
I have been spellbound by your talent, no, actually I think its a
penchant for obfiscation. Since I know this to be the case in an
area where I believe I have considerable expertise, I have every
reason to believe it would continue in our discussion of "the
central dogma of biochemistry", where I do not have expertise, and
where I would be at the mercy of your considerable talents for
misdirection.

PR

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Addressing Scientific Reductionism
    ... An inductive inference is made from the particular to the general, ... inference can now be made that all swans are white. ... induction to the sciences is quite clear because this inductive inference ... inductive inference provides the opposite event: an expansion of complexity. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Addressing Scientific Reductionism
    ... inductive inference constitutes an increase in complexity. ... An inductive inference is made from the particular to the general, ... all swans are white and not all white things are swans simply adds non ... the swan induction remained less complex because no limits were placed on ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: induction proof
    ... "Every wff, A, has the same number of left and right parentheses." ... The proof uses mathematical induction on formula complexity, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Addressing Scientific Reductionism
    ... Since your view of "reduction" constitutes an increase ... An inductive inference is made from the particular to the general, ... induction to the sciences is quite clear because this inductive inference ... just one black swan refutes the induction entirely ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: induction proof
    ... "Every wff, A, has the same number of left and right parentheses." ... The proof uses mathematical induction on formula complexity, ...
    (sci.math)