An Attack on Science

Forums: Science, Philosophy, Philosophy Of Science
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Science relies heavily on induction reasoning, but induction reasoning is seen as problematic because it can't justify it self. Obviously even deductive reasoning is flawed due to the assumptions used i.e the set of axioms.

So does this mean skepticism is ultimately right even tho it's a self paradoxical concept.

Think about it!

Just thought I'd get the chance before people start going like.. do you even know what the word induction/deductive reasoning or axioms means. Yes I do know what they mean, and it's obvious because you don't!

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 9 • Views: 6,617 • Replies: 93

No top replies

@ikurwa89,

ikurwa89 wrote:

Science relies heavily on induction reasoning, but induction reasoning is seen as problematic because it can't justify it self. Obviously even deductive reasoning is flawed due to the assumptions used i.e the set of axioms.

So does this mean skepticism is ultimately right even tho it's a self paradoxical concept.

Think about it!

Just thought I'd get the chance before people start going like.. do you even know what the word induction/deductive reasoning or axioms means. Yes I do know what they mean, and it's obvious because you don't!

But that is actually thinking... First reach a possible conclusion, and then try to prove of disprove it... Deduction is more like stepping stones, but what do you do if you run out of logical seeming steps, or no step is visable??? At some point insight and imagination come into play, and it is the creative quality of thought and experiment that defines genius as opposed to intelligent, in my opinion...

0 Replies

It is more a matter of understanding that things have a varying degree of certainty, rather than applying rigourous skepticism to every occasion that presents itself.

2 Replies

@ikurwa89,

ikurwa89 wrote:

Science relies heavily on induction reasoning, but induction reasoning is seen as problematic because it can't justify it self. Obviously even deductive reasoning is flawed due to the assumptions used i.e the set of axioms.

So does this mean skepticism is ultimately right even tho it's a self paradoxical concept.

Think about it!

Just thought I'd get the chance before people start going like.. do you even know what the word induction/deductive reasoning or axioms means. Yes I do know what they mean, and it's obvious because you don't!

It is not deductive reasoning that is flawed just because the premises are not known with certainty. Deductive reasoning is still truth-preserving, but inductive reasoning is not.

But the issue is whether because inductive reasoning is not truth-preserving (as is deductive reasoning) whether that means that inductive reasoning is problematic. Or whether all that shows is that inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning are different kinds of reasoning, and have different standards. Inductive reasoning is not problematic just because it is not deductive reasoning, no more than is the game of baseball problematic because it is not the game of football.

0 Replies

@jgweed,

But we are trying to arrive at a source of knowledge that is "perfect" in every single way, and it appears like even mathematics(the "God" of all knowledge) can be called on to doubt!

What good is having a degree of certainty, when you can have the actual phenomena it self.. or in other words, why prefer the analogy(degree of certainty) when you can have the phenomena(absolute knowledge) it self!

Well, this turned out more of a epistemological question!

2 Replies

@ikurwa89,

What's this "we" ****? You gotta mouse in your pocket? Not everyone is obsessed with attaining perfection--and many have a healthy doubt that perfection exists.

2 Replies

@ikurwa89,

Science relies on the repeatable experiment and on nothing else. As to mathematics, Goedel answered your query long ago.

Your allegedly philosophical musings constitute no attack on science - just an attack on your own faulty reasoning.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

What's this "we" ****? You gotta mouse in your pocket? Not everyone is obsessed with attaining perfection--and many have a healthy doubt that perfection exists.

I like what the Muslims say, That only Allah is perfect... Very often early in a task they will insert a deliberate screw up, so that perfection is then out of the way, and people can do well enough... As moral forms go, few cause as much misery as Perfection...I tell people its my jinx word, and ask them not to use it around me... It is not necessary...

1 Reply

@Setanta,

I'm sorry, I don't like to take "****" for granted.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

You have made the assumption that the universe exists, also claiming things such as repeatble experiment, you assume what you witness is actually factual and that the interperation is the true one. As for Godel incompletness(which I'm assuming you are referring to) does solve anything but infact casts doubt in any knowledge that we have today.

Try looking up a thing called "The problem of Induction" maybe then you will understand what science actually adopts.

3 Replies

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

Setanta wrote:

What's this "we" ****? You gotta mouse in your pocket? Not everyone is obsessed with attaining perfection--and many have a healthy doubt that perfection exists.

I like what the Muslims say, That only Allah is perfect... Very often early in a task they will insert a deliberate screw up, so that perfection is then out of the way, and people can do well enough... As moral forms go, few cause as much misery as Perfection...I tell people its my jinx word, and ask them not to use it around me... It is not necessary...

What has any of this to do with anything?

1 Reply

@ikurwa89,

But she has also made the assumption that your first post exists just as you assume the answers exist.

If you want to argue that we can't trust our senses then you have already shown you don't trust that conclusion by simply asking the question.

2 Replies

@ikurwa89,

ikurwa89 wrote:

I'm sorry, I don't like to take "****" for granted.

The certainty you seek: Absolute knowledge is only a moral form... All our concepts, and quasi concepts like knowledge are absolutes as they are... Concepts are not half measures; but reality is all in proportion... So you cannot get hung up on the concept of the thing, or the moral form as though it is the thing itself....Its value lies in helping us to classify experience and organize thought, and forms and moral forms are no substitute for experience or thought...

0 Replies

@ikurwa89,

ikurwa89 wrote:

You have made the assumption that the universe exists, also claiming things such as repeatble experiment, you assume what you witness is actually factual and that the interperation is the true one. As for Godel incompletness(which I'm assuming you are referring to) does solve anything but infact casts doubt in any knowledge that we have today.

Try looking up a thing called "The problem of Induction" maybe then you will understand what science actually adopts.

The problem of induction is the problem of justifying inductive reasoning. Suppose inductive reasoning cannot be justified. Does that show that given what we know about why the Sun rises every morning, i.e. that the Earth rotates on its axis once every 24 hours, and why that occurs, that our belief that the Sun will rise tomorrow is not justified? The answer is yes, but only if you assume the principle that unless what is being justified is true (that a false statement cannot be justified). But have you any good argument for that assumption?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Fido wrote:

Setanta wrote:

What's this "we" ****? You gotta mouse in your pocket? Not everyone is obsessed with attaining perfection--and many have a healthy doubt that perfection exists.

I like what the Muslims say, That only Allah is perfect... Very often early in a task they will insert a deliberate screw up, so that perfection is then out of the way, and people can do well enough... As moral forms go, few cause as much misery as Perfection...I tell people its my jinx word, and ask them not to use it around me... It is not necessary...

What has any of this to do with anything?

Kenn... I will explain it to you... Setanta's post metntioned perfection twice, and concepts/forms are always perfect while reality is not... In the recreation of reality, social forms, according to our ideals, for example, millions have been killed... The essential ability of a philosopher is to be able to distinguish forms, which are all perfect though never real, even when of chaos, -from reality which is always real and never perfect... Would it help if I w r o t e s l o w e r because you think S L O W E R???

1 Reply

@ikurwa89,

ikurwa89 wrote:

You have made the assumption that the universe exists, also claiming things such as repeatble experiment, you assume what you witness is actually factual and that the interperation is the true one. As for Godel incompletness(which I'm assuming you are referring to) does solve anything but infact casts doubt in any knowledge that we have today.

Try looking up a thing called "The problem of Induction" maybe then you will understand what science actually adopts.

We should doubt knowledge... Our knowledge of even the most simple elements of reality are suspect, and we should accept it ... Of moral forms we can never say we know, and of physical forms we have only an analogical knowledge which is only as good as it works...

0 Replies

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

Fido wrote:

Setanta wrote:

What's this "we" ****? You gotta mouse in your pocket? Not everyone is obsessed with attaining perfection--and many have a healthy doubt that perfection exists.

I like what the Muslims say, That only Allah is perfect... Very often early in a task they will insert a deliberate screw up, so that perfection is then out of the way, and people can do well enough... As moral forms go, few cause as much misery as Perfection...I tell people its my jinx word, and ask them not to use it around me... It is not necessary...

What has any of this to do with anything?

Kenn... I will explain it to you... Setanta's post metntioned perfection twice, and concepts/forms are always perfect while reality is not... In the recreation of reality, social forms, according to our ideals, for example, millions have been killed... The essential ability of a philosopher is to be able to distinguish forms, which are all perfect though never real, even when of chaos, -from reality which is always real and never perfect... Would it help if I w r o t e s l o w e r because you think S L O W E R???

No, I am afraid it would not help, since you still do not make sense. And I don't suppose that is something you can help.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Fido wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

Fido wrote:

Setanta wrote:

What's this "we" ****? You gotta mouse in your pocket? Not everyone is obsessed with attaining perfection--and many have a healthy doubt that perfection exists.

I like what the Muslims say, That only Allah is perfect... Very often early in a task they will insert a deliberate screw up, so that perfection is then out of the way, and people can do well enough... As moral forms go, few cause as much misery as Perfection...I tell people its my jinx word, and ask them not to use it around me... It is not necessary...

What has any of this to do with anything?

Kenn... I will explain it to you... Setanta's post metntioned perfection twice, and concepts/forms are always perfect while reality is not... In the recreation of reality, social forms, according to our ideals, for example, millions have been killed... The essential ability of a philosopher is to be able to distinguish forms, which are all perfect though never real, even when of chaos, -from reality which is always real and never perfect... Would it help if I w r o t e s l o w e r because you think S L O W E R???

No, I am afraid it would not help, since you still do not make sense. And I don't suppose that is something you can help.

Don't define yourself in the effort to define me... You have to have sense to see sense... Don't expect me to think for both of us...

0 Replies

@ikurwa89,

ikurwa89 wrote:

Science relies heavily on induction reasoning, but induction reasoning is seen as problematic because it can't justify it self. Obviously even deductive reasoning is flawed due to the assumptions used i.e the set of axioms.

So does this mean skepticism is ultimately right even tho it's a self paradoxical concept.

Think about it!

Just thought I'd get the chance before people start going like.. do you even know what the word induction/deductive reasoning or axioms means. Yes I do know what they mean, and it's obvious because you don't!

science relies on the behaviour of the object first , which leads to " deductive " reasoning

not inductive reasoning at all

1 Reply

@north,

north wrote:

ikurwa89 wrote:

Science relies heavily on induction reasoning, but induction reasoning is seen as problematic because it can't justify it self. Obviously even deductive reasoning is flawed due to the assumptions used i.e the set of axioms.

So does this mean skepticism is ultimately right even tho it's a self paradoxical concept.

Think about it!

Just thought I'd get the chance before people start going like.. do you even know what the word induction/deductive reasoning or axioms means. Yes I do know what they mean, and it's obvious because you don't!

science relies on the behaviour of the object first , which leads to " deductive " reasoning

not inductive reasoning at all

I thought inductive reasoning involved observation, which you just suggested with the word behavior...

2 Replies

An Attack on Science

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know