Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science

From: aeo6 (aeo6_at_cornell.edu)
Date: 02/14/05 

Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 10:15:02 -0500

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. 

-- 
Smiles,
Tony

Relevant Pages