Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science

From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 02/14/05 

Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 19:56:46 GMT

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 10:15:02 -0500, Tony Orlow (aeo6)
<aeo6@cornell.edu> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>Lester Zick said:
>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 10:27:48 -0500, Tony Orlow (aeo6)
>> <aeo6@cornell.edu> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>>
>> >robert j. kolker said:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Albert wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > I would prefer this wording:
>> >> > The universe behaves according to natural laws, and is therefore
>> >> > consistent and interconnected. Mathematics is a useful invention for
>> >> > describing those aspects of natural law that we have observed.
>> >>
>> >> We can only observe particulars. The laws of physics are universally
>> >> qunatified propositions. Thus we do not -observe- them. We hypothesize
>> >> them. You have stated the problem of induction. How to do you get from a
>> >> finite set of particulars to a general law?
>> >>
>> >> Bob Kolker
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >Logical induction, by identifying and formulating patterns based on the
>> >sample we have. This of course depends on classification of objects and
>> >predicates, so that we can formulate rules of the correct generality
>> >both in domain and scope.
>>
>> Except that identification and formulation of patterns relies on
>> inferences which have no demonstrable basis in fact and are vulnerable
>> to post hoc propter hoc fallacy. It's really nothing but a formalized
>> version of subjective interpretive historical analysis.
>>
>> Regards - Lester
>>
>What I am talking about is deriving patterns from facts that have been
>gathered through experience as data points, using statistical methods to
>draw inferences that can be tested as rules and be assigned levels or
>reliability, much like scientific method does with theories. I believe
>this process that we've defined for use outside our heads as science is
>actually at work already every day in our heads by nature.

Sure. That doesn't mean the process isn't subject to inductive
fallacies. Statistics are just a formalized variant of analogical
reasoning evident in analogies and argument by example.

Regards - Lester

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >> Except that identification and formulation of patterns relies on ... >> inferences which have no demonstrable basis in fact and are vulnerable ... >actually at work already every day in our heads by nature. ... reasoning evident in analogies and argument by example. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >> Except that identification and formulation of patterns relies on ... >> inferences which have no demonstrable basis in fact and are vulnerable ... >actually at work already every day in our heads by nature. ... reasoning evident in analogies and argument by example. ...
    (sci.cognitive)
Quantcast