5 ms·

Please don't act condescending. The problem of induction is well-known, and is closely related to what you are discussing here. I agree that science can't liter

Please don't act condescending. The problem of induction is well-known, and is closely related to what you are discussing here. I agree that science can't literally prove any hypothesis is true in the same sense that mathematics/logic can; but we also can't jump from here to considering inductive reasoning an entirely useless tool in the search for truth. That is the point that I am trying to make: experimentation can bring proof to strengthen a hypothesis. Even if a later experiment invalidates a hypothesis, all of the previous experiments' results don't disappear, and any new hypothesis we formulate still needs to be coherent with them to have any value: we have actually learned something important from our thousand experiments, even if our 1001st showed that the hypothesis we had in mind was false. Also, this is not unique to science. The same phenomenon can happen in mathematics or logic for theorems that have been neither proven nor disproven yet. We can perform numerical experiments to test a numerical theorem, and gain some amount of confidence in that theorem even if we haven't proven it to be true. We can often establish lower or upper bounds in the course of this experimentation, where we find that the theorem is True at least for some limited subset of all numbers - and this remains True and useful even if it later turns out that there exist counter-examples. This observation is also very important for understanding why the history of natural philosophy is essentially one of continuous progress, with very little backtracking: even if induction is not good enough to know that we have a perfectly complete and consistent theory (and we will never have one), we always have something salvageable from all of the experimentation done so far. Even geocentric models with their epicycles were actually working models, which predicted the positions of planets in the next 1000 years to quite good accuracy, even if they were clearly wrong in the end.

deltasevennine 4y ago
>Please don't act condescending. Please don't accuse me of acting condescending. It's very offensive and hurts my feelings when I'm accused of something I'm not doing. I am criticizing you, but I am not being condescending. There is a huge difference. Perhaps the alien thing was bad. I apologize for that. The intent was a joke and was not condescension. >That is the point that I am trying to make: experimentation can bring proof to strengthen a hypothesis. Even if a later experiment invalidates a hypothesis, all of the previous experiments' results don't disappear, and any new hypothesis we formulate still needs to be coherent with them to have any value: we have actually learned something important from our thousand experiments, even if our 1001st showed that the hypothesis we had in mind was false. Yes but this was not part of the discussion. We're talking about science as a principle. Not what we have learned from the process of science. >This observation is also very important for understanding why the history of natural philosophy is essentially one of continuous progress, with very little backtracking: even if induction is not good enough to know that we have a perfectly complete and consistent theory (and we will never have one), we always have something salvageable from all of the experimentation done so far. Even geocentric models with their epicycles were actually working models, which predicted the positions of planets in the next 1000 years to quite good accuracy, even if they were clearly wrong in the end. Important or not, we diverged from the point. Whether Science is a valid principle shared by humans and aliens is the point. My point is, PG's view isn't even shared with humans, why should he assume it's going to be shared with aliens? You're talking about the importance of science. The value of science. That's off topic.
- stale2002 4y ago
  > Yes So then you agree that "experimentation can bring proof to strengthen a hypothesis" > Whether Science is a valid principle shared by humans and aliens Well, the experimentation part, that can bring proof to strength a hypothesis, is something that you agreed to. So that part would be shared, that you agreed to.
  - deltasevennine 4y ago
    no. Don't agree. Experimentation can't prove anything. It also doesn't strengthen anything. Proof is not a strengthening of something. If you prove something it means it's true. >Well, the experimentation part, that can bring proof to strength a hypothesis, is something that you agreed to. >So that part would be shared, that you agreed to. Never agreed. You misinterpreted. I agreed to this: "we have actually learned something important from our thousand experiments". You learned that for 1000 experiments you observed something. That's it.
    - stale2002 4y ago
      > You learned that for 1000 experiments you observed something Ok great, so then you agree that this is a principle that would be shared, which is the point.
      - deltasevennine 4y ago
        Not great. Because I disagree with you. You learned something. But established nothing. You are no closer to proving your hypothesis.
        stale2002 4y ago
        You said this "You learned that for 1000 experiments you observed something" So then yes, that is an agreement that at least to that statement. > But established nothing. Well it established that at least you agree with that statement. > Because I disagree with you. actually you said this "I agreed to this:" This is you saying that you agreed with the statement that followed that. So yes, you used the word agree.

deltasevennine 4y ago

>Please don't act condescending. Please don't accuse me of acting condescending. It's very offensive and hurts my feelings when I'm accused of something I'm not doing. I am criticizing you, but I am not being condescending. There is a huge difference. Perhaps the alien thing was bad. I apologize for that. The intent was a joke and was not condescension. >That is the point that I am trying to make: experimentation can bring proof to strengthen a hypothesis. Even if a later experiment invalidates a hypothesis, all of the previous experiments' results don't disappear, and any new hypothesis we formulate still needs to be coherent with them to have any value: we have actually learned something important from our thousand experiments, even if our 1001st showed that the hypothesis we had in mind was false. Yes but this was not part of the discussion. We're talking about science as a principle. Not what we have learned from the process of science. >This observation is also very important for understanding why the history of natural philosophy is essentially one of continuous progress, with very little backtracking: even if induction is not good enough to know that we have a perfectly complete and consistent theory (and we will never have one), we always have something salvageable from all of the experimentation done so far. Even geocentric models with their epicycles were actually working models, which predicted the positions of planets in the next 1000 years to quite good accuracy, even if they were clearly wrong in the end. Important or not, we diverged from the point. Whether Science is a valid principle shared by humans and aliens is the point. My point is, PG's view isn't even shared with humans, why should he assume it's going to be shared with aliens? You're talking about the importance of science. The value of science. That's off topic.

stale2002 4y ago
> Yes So then you agree that "experimentation can bring proof to strengthen a hypothesis" > Whether Science is a valid principle shared by humans and aliens Well, the experimentation part, that can bring proof to strength a hypothesis, is something that you agreed to. So that part would be shared, that you agreed to.
- deltasevennine 4y ago
  no. Don't agree. Experimentation can't prove anything. It also doesn't strengthen anything. Proof is not a strengthening of something. If you prove something it means it's true. >Well, the experimentation part, that can bring proof to strength a hypothesis, is something that you agreed to. >So that part would be shared, that you agreed to. Never agreed. You misinterpreted. I agreed to this: "we have actually learned something important from our thousand experiments". You learned that for 1000 experiments you observed something. That's it.
  - stale2002 4y ago
    > You learned that for 1000 experiments you observed something Ok great, so then you agree that this is a principle that would be shared, which is the point.
    - deltasevennine 4y ago
      Not great. Because I disagree with you. You learned something. But established nothing. You are no closer to proving your hypothesis.
      - stale2002 4y ago
        You said this "You learned that for 1000 experiments you observed something" So then yes, that is an agreement that at least to that statement. > But established nothing. Well it established that at least you agree with that statement. > Because I disagree with you. actually you said this "I agreed to this:" This is you saying that you agreed with the statement that followed that. So yes, you used the word agree.