DasAmericanAtheist, the problem of induction, and causality

[TheTruthgeneral]

The problem of induction can be shown not to really exist as it seems to be tacitly using a event based model of cause and effect instead of a entity based model which must be used

[TheTruthgeneral]

Concerning the example you used with sodium is it supposed to be a matter of the nmber of times we observe blah blah blah or can it simply be affirmed that by a certain definition of the word sodium it follows necessarily that it will do this or that in a certain situation.I mean can simply affirm that it is within its nature to do so,so if you observe what you claim to be sodium doing something else well i can simply say well that is not sodium the problem of induction can be shown not to exist

[TheTruthgeneral]

Induction you define as merely the process of scientists judging a given theory to be valid/invalid.Okay in other words induction is a word representing any type of judgement done by any one on a given assertion about anything that is accessible empirically.Now you said the problem with this is how do we know that some laws of nature never change ?.What is a law of nature ? and can it be shown to be in accordance with objective existence that a law of nature can change ?

[sklanger]

That's your critique of falsificationism? A half-hearted, unconvincing, one-sentence damp squib about "positive knowledge"? Weak.

[spectrumVerX]

points scientists to saying that 'sodium always glows orange when heated' - as all conceived and possible conditions and processes have produced the same result. Anyone versed in philosophy will have reservations regarding what they call 'knowledge', but we have to take the "highest operational value" and go with that when moving forward.  Considering all this, 'the problem of induction' doesn't really exist. This is completely compatible with bayesian methods, to boot

[spectrumVerX]

In science, claims are made as a result of research, not before...at that point they are merely hypotheses. If sodium glows bright orange in a bunsen burner, the scientist will claim "Sodium glows bright orange when (indirectly, if in a flask) heated in an atmosphere of ~1 atmosphere with an air composition similar to common air" - someone will have to observe and report the same under water, at higher altitudes, different air compositions, etc. The lack of differing results is what...

[migkillertwo]

@spectrumVerX the problem is that we dont just start with unbias facts. We start with certain presuppositions about which facts are relevant to observe. Gregor Mendel didn't take into account the brightness of the moon in boston when he was doing his experiments.

[spectrumVerX]

@migkillertwo Mendel, at this point, is a non-sequitor. The confusion you have is the same as before, hypotheses != claims. We start hypotheses with presuppositions, based upon previously acquired empiricism, with an expectation of the results of our proposed procedure. The claim, made afterwords, is a collection of conclusions that can be drawn from the results of the experiment

[otakurocklee]

Nice video.

We all appeal to this law of causality already... the thing is can we prove that this law is true...

[Chris63084]

I need to learn more about science.

Good video!

[roycesboy]

causality does exist on the quantom level as it does on the macro lvl particles are made up of other particles, cause as we know it is just that on any lvl of existence in general terms its somthing makeing up somthing else to create somthing new we dont know of anything that is caused by nothing so science as we know it is secure with causality and unharmed by it.

[paulmarko]

I don't think your problem with falsification is valid. You're talking about positive knowledge as though we can have 100% certainty in science, which is not true. It's just after a theory stands up over so much time, against so much evidence, the probability of it being true goes up. After a while it can hover around 99.99999%, but will NEVER be 100%.

We CAN send a person to the moon upon 99.99999% certainty. That's lower than some of the other risk factors, like fuel explosions.

[shotinthedark90]

You have to establish by what percentage your certainty goes up with each observation. You see, your percentage of certainty is subjective. Perhaps each observation of gravity increases your certainty of the law of gravity by 5%, but perhaps my certainty is only increased by 1%. You're basing certainty on an alterable standard, which actually is self-destructive.

[paulmarko]

It IS an alterable standard, but this is a strength and in no way self destructive. It means that we can refine and improve the standard to fit observable data.

ideally, to get the perfect likelihood, we'd have to take all data about everything into account. This is of course impossible, so we have to estimate with the best data available to us and slap error bars on the whole thing. I think this is good enough for any pragmatic purpose.

Don't confuse tight error bars for no error bars at all.

[shotinthedark90]

We can't improve the standard based on data because the standard is prior to observation. By what standard do you change the standard?

What it comes down to is people with limitted knowledge attempting to use their reason to lay a basis for their reason. That's why it's self-destructive. Thus you must resort to "it's practical" or pragmatic. How do you define what is pragmatic? By your reason? Still circular.

[paulmarko]

There are philosophies underlying science, and they can sometimes lead to false conclusions, but the philosophy will always yield if contradicted by evidence. That's the standard you're talking about.

I'm not "resorting" to pragmatism, I'm countering your assertion that us going to the moon is proof of "positive knowledge"

[shotinthedark90]

I never said that going to the moon was proof of positive knowledge. I think that was migkillertwo.

Philosophies will always yield if contradicted by evidence? That's a philosophy in itself, valuing empirical evidence over a priori reasoning.

[paulmarko]

Yes, it is a philosophy. I'm not sure what the problem is. Are there some philosophies used In science that you disagree with?

[shotinthedark90]

All I'm saying is that philosophies are prior to evidence, hence the terminology "a priori." They determine how we deal with evidence, they aren't changed by it necessarily. And I think you would agree that all philosophies are not equal, but maybe you wouldn't. So I guess my point is that the standards for scientific certainty must be argued and established before we look at empirical evidence.

[paulmarko]

I tend to believe that much of our "a priori" reasoning is inferred from forgotten experiences in our developmental stages, which is why we have logical errors. Things that sound convincing but aren't logically sound. Even things like causality, I believe, comes from developmental observation.

Yes, I agree that all philosophies aren't equal. If a philosophy lies in direct contradiction to evidence, than It it isn't as good as one that is. Do you disagree with this concept?

[shotinthedark90]

You're top paragraph is speculation.

Sure, if a philosophy contradicts evidence, it's no good. BUT, there are many different philosophies that can not be contradicted by evidence, like the ones migkillertwo addresses. He uses only a priori reasoning to demonstrate problems, not scientific evidence because that would prove to be circular. It's like using evidence to tell us how we should use the evidence.

[paulmarko]

"He uses only a priori reasoning to demonstrate problems, not scientific evidence"

This isn't true at all! He uses the scientific evidence of the space program to prove his concept that "positive knowledge" exists. My entire objection is that the space program doesn't prove "positive knowledge," in the sense that can disprove deductionism, because in order to disprove deductionism, you need "absolute certainty", which has eluded philosophers for all time.

[paulmarko]

BTW, my top paragraph is defensible. I was hoping you'd already agree with the concept. I think I understand your point now, and realize that the origin of A Priori reasoning aren't important to this discussion.

There are some fundamental philosophies to science that don't change. The core philosophy of science is called methodological materialism. Everything that science is justified to comment on fits within this "philosophical boundary" if you will.

[AtheismandSkepticism]

Who said that scientists will conclude that sodium always burns orange from preliminary results alone?

Good ol' xkcd:

xkcd(dot)com/242/

Btw, how the fuck can you ramble for 9:59s without actually saying anything?

[Ishta5]

Nothing indicates that if something is true for the macroscopic level it has to be true for the microscopic level.

[1234funsies]

@Ishta5 enter quantum mechanics

[WayOfTheBastard]

You have to make boring response videos to James, but nothing for me? COME ON!!! I am so hurt.... Maybe if I had 2k subs..... Jeez

[Dhorpatan]

@WayOfTheBastard

Dude, you're calling this video boring?

How dare you.

[tehknologik]

He agreed to debate me on TheologyWeb - the thread has been opened by the moderators and all are awaiting his opening post but he claims he has been to busy and that it probably won't happen after all.

Mysterious how he finds the time to pop out these YouTube videos.

[migkillertwo]

"Mysterious how he finds the time to pop out these YouTube videos."

I'm very sorry Tehk, but researching for videos like these is very easy, I couldn't have spent more than 1/2 hour with my nose in a book for this video, but the research I'd have to do for the opening statement in a debate with you would take many hours.

[tehknologik]

Well the thread has been open since the 30th of August. Maybe you've just been lazy... I dunno. But if you want to make it up to me, I'd very much appreciate seeing your thoughts on WayOfTheBastard's video - because I enjoyed it.

[migkillertwo]

which video on particular? WayOfTheBastard has made a few video responses to me.

[tehknologik]

"Why does rationality presuppose free will?"

[migkillertwo]

ah yes, that one. I didn't respond for the same reason I haven't responded to Sisyphusredeemed's abortion-vid-response to me, I'm making a treatise on that issue in my upcoming series on metaphysics.

[shotinthedark90]

Because if we are incapable of being irrational, there is no way to identify what is rational. The term ceases to have a definition.

[soultorment27]

scientific knowledge is not all just inductive...

science is a combination of deductive (a prior) AND induction.

[longhornman99001]

I make video responses to you. In fact, 3/5ths of my videos are responses to you.

[WayOfTheBastard]

Ok so the video wasn't boring, but I am still hurt. What do you want a response to longhornman? I've given you many =P I need to watch your new video. Mig has evasion skill maxed.

[jcrebel18]

The problem with the argument that ID or it's components aren't falsifiable is that they'll contradict themselves and say, "Oh well we tested it and it's false." Especially with Behe's Irreducibly Complex Systems. One example of this is Francis Collins who said in an interview that ID couldn't possibly falsifiable, yet he tried to falsify it in his book "The Language of God."

Typical.

[FatGermanBastard]

Part 1:

Well migkiller: I agree with everything you said about induction and it's been a good video.

I just don't see where you are going with this because all of the arguments for God with the exception of the Ontological argument (which is the worst of all of them) use at least one premise that has been established inductively. That means if you insist there is a problem of induction which destroys science then it destroys Christianity along with it.

[FatGermanBastard]

Part 2:

Of course if you are just saying that science is based on faith in it's starting assumptions then yes, it is. No professional scientist denies that and science is still better than religion because science starts with certain starting assumptions and then derives other ideas from these (trying to achieve the highest possible consistency between the starting assumptions and the ideas). Religion begins with ideas and then adjusts the starting assumptions to match those ideas.

[Dhorpatan]

@FatGermanBastard

Wow, you haven't made a new video in 6 months? So have you quit making videos, but are gong to just comment on others videos?

[FatGermanBastard]

@Dhorpatan:

LOL yeah I know...I'm still planning to make new videos but time always goes by so far. You take care of some stuff and woosh...one year gone by.