Reasoning

« The Unknowns | Bad wiring #1 »

Reasoning

by semafu @ 2007-08-14 – 10:28:06

(moved!!! I had this on the personal blog whoops!!!)

We reason using deductive or inductive logic.

In deductive logic the conclusions are *necessitated* by the premises...

All men are mortal (premise),
Socrates is a man (premise),
Therefore Socrates is mortal (conclusion).

Inductive reasoning is what you might call common sense, it's our life experiences.

Jack runs around in the snow for the first time, it's cold. Next time he sees snow he "knows" that it's cold, he doesn't need to bother touching it again.

This often works for us. After all empiricism is the basis of science. However it is flawed, because the conclusion is not certain and can never be certain.

Jack has seen thousands of crows in his life, every one has been black, therefore all crows are black..... Until he sees an albino crow.

The problem is that you have to observe every crow (and know that you have observed every crow) to know that all crows are black. A single exception disproves the rule.

This is a difference between maths and science. I would not expect a mathematical theorem to ever be disproved (excepting that there was an actual error constructing it).

Scientific knowledge is on a much shakier foundation.

I remember reading this somewhere on the web, don't know who said it first;

There are two types of scientific theory, Those that have been disproved, And those yet to be disproved

I think that's pretty much spot on.
Options:
Tags:

9 Comments to Reasoning

Hide subcomments

- kenanphoenix
- http://kenanphoenix.wordpress.com
- 2007-08-14 @ 16:43:16
i agree with you... "Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves." physicist Richard Feynman
- Reply to comment
- Permalink
- jenray ^Pro
- http://www.jenniferhunter.co.uk
- 2007-08-14 @ 17:05:05
Spot on with the last quote...LOL...did you see the progs recently on Mathematicians and their thereoms, and the appalling treatment they received at the hands of their fellow mathematicians on BBC4? And Richard Dawkins last night 'The Enemies of Reason'...it's strange but he's promoting science as the right use of reason, but when I watched the last part of Atom recently and heard about the trouble Feynman had when he came up with his new quantum electrodynamics and his new method of expressing mathematical equations in front of the then scientific establishment, they threw out his ideas and furiously dismissed him as an upstart and wrong...in the end they did soften their attitude, but some didn't..If all scientists were in agreement on a particular theory then Dawkins could expect more people to flock to science for guidance in their lives, but there's constant disagreement and very vicious battles between them more often than not so I think he's asking an awful lot of the person in the street to give up believing in esoteric theories and superstitions...
- - semafu
  - 2007-08-14 @ 19:32:12
  Hi J,
  
  Nope been too busy to watch TV for sometime now, sounds like my kind of show tho.
  
  Don't trust that Dawkins, looks sweet as pie but I'm betting he's a bad apple.
  
  I might see if I can download one of those progs now...
  - - jenray ^Pro
    - http://www.jenniferhunter.co.uk
    - 2007-08-14 @ 20:07:31
    Why do you think he's a bad apple? He's enthusiastic about science and wants it to play a greater part in the everyday life of human beings, instead of being relegated lower than myths and superstition...he acknowledges that scientific knowledge is subject constantly to change, but that's the exciting and challenging part of it...he stands in awe of the world and the Universe and wants everybody to share his wonder...that's not my idea of a bad apple...we need more Dawkins' characters rather than less...
    - - semafu
      - 2007-08-14 @ 22:21:34
      Not for his scepticism or his science, but for his politics.
      
      He said that teaching religion to children was child abuse. Where’s that going?
      
      He’s not content to bring up his own children as he sees fit – he wants to tell you how to bring yours up too. This is a real warning flag.
      
      If the UK became a secular humanist state, the faith schools would be banned, home schooling would be banned and they’d probably want to take your kids away for teaching them religion. Hey, how about making theists wear little yellow stars so we all know who has the dangerous “virus”
      
      It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, "mad cow" disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.
      -- Richard Dawkins, The Humanist, Vol. 57, No. 1
      
      What’s the real agenda, where are we really going here?
      - jenray ^Pro
        
        http://www.jenniferhunter.co.uk
        
        2007-08-14 @ 23:18:19
        
        As a child, I was brought up by nuns and priests to believe in God, it was also a God who, while loving me, was capable of sending me into hell for all eternity if I died in a state of mortal sin...and sins were numerous and pretty easy to commit...It took me until I was in my early forties to break that conditioning and to free myself from the brainwashing I had as an innocent child...Richard Dawkins was partially responsible for helping me to understand the passing on of religious belief as memes...learned memories passed on from generation to generation...he, personally, congratulated me on managing to break away because he knows how hard it is to do that...now, I think it completely wrong to teach children to believe in a specific deity...by all means teach them about all the belief systems in our world then, when they reach adulthood, let them decide for themselves which one best suits them if any....I don't agree with faith schools, and what you are suggesting he would do is completely wrong...he wants you to choose intelligently not by force...I know you won't agree with me on this, but I've spent the last fifty or more years studying and thinking about this subject and I am more than fearful that the conflict to come will be for the domination of one set of beliefs over another and God will have nothing to do with it in the end, it will be hatred of one man or woman for his or her belief and, if not of the same belief as you, then better dead....I ask you back... what is the agenda of believers in a particular God in our world?
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        semafu
        
        2007-08-15 @ 01:58:16
        
        It took me until I was in my early forties to break that conditioning and to free myself from the brainwashing I had as an innocent child
        
        Sorry to hear it, must have been a tough environment.
        
        I can only go from my personal experience; Out of the group of us that were sent along to Sunday school / church as kids, about half jacked it in as soon as they went to university.
        
        The world was a bigger place, sex, drugs and rock’n’roll. I dropped it after about 4 months of being at Uni. I hardly blinked and I don’t think anyone else did. (I came back to it later but that’s another story, most of the others did not)
        
        Of the other half a lot stuck to it, but a lot of them just changed their belief system to fit their new life style, a sort of best-of-both-worlds solution.
        
        So in my experience I don’t see this powerful meme thing going on.
        
        But then again maybe if my experience had been more like yours...
        
        I ask you back... what is the agenda of believers in a particular God in our world?
        
        Suppose it depends on the particular believers / which religious system - there are so many.
        
        I personally would not describe teaching a child atheism as child abuse – and when people tell their kids “God does not exist” that is effectivley what they are doing. I haven’t done a survey but I would think that is quite common.
        
        And I wouldn't describe people who had atheistic beliefs as having a dangerous virus.
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
- deleted user (Visitor)
- cishanjia
- 2007-08-14 @ 19:03:17
I think the scientific method has demonstrable merit. The mere fact that we are able to debate this on computers, and a network of computers, whose technology is from science is just one example.

You are quite correct, that mathematics may provide a sound theoretical basis, in that mathematics follows strict rules. Conversely, scientific experiments offer an increasing balance of probabilities; in that replicated experiments generating consistent results that fail to disprove an hypothesis increases the likelihood that the results are not due to chance.

The best results, of course, come from mathematical theory with which experiment agrees.

I much prefer to accept reason and scientific empiricism over bold assertion - such as the belief in astrology. However, I am also concerned whenever science, or more correctly scientists, steps beyond its bounds and pronounces its own bold assertions such as "there is no such thing as God"; an unprovable hypothesis, I believe (just like "there is such a thing as God"). Here, I feel Dawkins becomes as guilty of superstition as those he accuses of being superstitious! Or rather, becomes presumptuous; assuming something as true, which need not be, without acknowledging (to himself) that it remains only an assumption. That said, I always find his programs entertaining!

However, the problem with science, I feel, remains this: if it ever proved beyond doubt that there is no God, or that there is no life after death, or that "this is all there is", it would rather be like proving beyond doubt that a giant comet was about to destroy the Earth. I think the evidence is that human beings need to believe in something "mystical" or "religious" or "superstitious" in order to cope with mortality, illness, disease, starvation, and all the other afflictions major and minor that beset them. Whilst science, through application in technology, may alleviate many of the problems our ancestors faced (and that many in the Third World still face), it does not necessarily provide the spiritual comfort people seem to require.

Ian
- Reply to comment
- Permalink
- semafu
- 2007-08-14 @ 19:47:16
Some interesting comments, agree with a lot.

not sure about this bit tho;

scientific experiments offer an increasing balance of probabilities; in that replicated experiments generating consistent results that fail to disprove an hypothesis increases the likelihood that the results are not due to chance.

Are you saying that if we do more experiments and get the same results, then the more experiments we do the more confident we can be?

'Cos I think that is wrong - and exactly the problem with induction.

Chicken gets fed by farmer day1
Chicken gets fed by farmer day2
Chicken gets fed by farmer day3
Chicken gets fed by farmer day4
Chicken gets fed by farmer day5
Chicken gets fed by farmer day6
...
Chicken gets fed by farmer day1045
Chicken gets fed by farmer day1046
Farmer cooks chicken day1047

The chicken (based on it's lengthy experience) was very confident that the farmer was friendly and would come to feed it. The chicken was very confident about this because the pattern had been repeated so many times.

Induction failed.

Notice the irony, the chicken is most confident right before it gets turned into a KFC.

However, the problem with science, I feel, remains this: if it ever proved beyond doubt that there is no God, or that there is no life after death, or that "this is all there is", it would rather be like proving beyond doubt that a giant comet was about to destroy the Earth.

I think I'd accept it. Perhaps it would be unpleasant but if that's how it is, then that's how it is.
- Reply to comment
- Permalink

9 Comments to Reasoning

Leave a comment (Login)