Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] TCS, Privacy, Induction
Elliot Temple
From: "Camille Bauer" <goddessofwisdom2@...>
worried about people arguing, and didn't want to go there, but I think a
better idea is to present reasons then simply exercise restraint and not
get sucked into responding to bad questions should any occur. So I'll do
it.
Reasons:
Argument by "it worked in this list of situations" is specious. It's a
form of induction.
Argument by the speaker claiming authority is specious. It's a form of
induction.
Argument by the speaker claiming authority via experience is specious.
It's a form of induction.
Privacy.
It's pointless and distracting.
If you're curious about induction A) it was shown not to work by Hume a few
hundred years ago B) Popper solved the problem of replacing it C) The
Frabric of Reality by David Deutsch, esp chaps 3 and 7 explains the subject
very well.
If you're *really* curious I'll copy/paste an explanation I wrote below.
I'm not expecting anyone to read it or discuss it, I'm just offering it as
information to those who want.
***WARNING: The Below Is Off-Topic For This List And May Be Boring***
Induction goes like this. You make a bunch of observations. You
generalize them into a theory. You make more observations to test the
theory. If they fit, then you have a good theory. This is impossible, has
never happened, and wouldn't work.
The first problem is that **any finite set of observations can support an
infinite number of theories**. So how do you generalize observations into
one theory when there are infinite choices? You don't.
The next problem is that no matter how many white socks I find, there may
always be a black one somewhere else. It can't prove anything. It can't
even make something more likely. There is no valid way to establish that
something is even more likely based on numerous observations.
Since induction can't happen and wouldn't work, you're probably wonder what
does work. This is called the Problem of Induction, it's the one Popper
solved. Here is the process that knowledge is actually created by (notice
that its evolution):
Step 1: Problem/Question
Step 2: Conjectures/Theories/Explanations. It does not matter how you come
up with them, or who comes up with them. The more the better.
Step 3: Criticism. Find flaws in theories and reject those. Any theory
with any flaw at all is wrong (although a similar theory with one change
may still be right). This is where observations come in, as one form of
criticism. But logic and argument are also useful criticisms.
Step 4: Alter your worldview to incorporate your new theory that survived
criticism in place of the old one.
Step 5: New Problem
The key points are that it doesn't matter who comes up with an idea. There
is no authority involved, and claiming "my theories are right b/c of
experience in the world" is obvious specious. Authority and Experience
making someone right only makes any sense at all to inductionists. What
makes people right is that all the rival theories fail to criticism, and
their own theory does not.
Note theories are basically explanations. Also that accepted theories are
not "proven" or even established as "likely" but simply the best and only
theory that makes sense. As soon as some problem with this theory comes
up, the process starts over to discover a better one.
> Do you want to tell us your homeschooling background, your kids' namesand
> ages? Because personally I think those who want to help othersunderstand
> unschooling should be at least that forthcoming. >>>Camille, you neglekted to tell the good people why! Perhaps you were
>
> Sandra,
>
> TCS people do not give out that sort of information.
worried about people arguing, and didn't want to go there, but I think a
better idea is to present reasons then simply exercise restraint and not
get sucked into responding to bad questions should any occur. So I'll do
it.
Reasons:
Argument by "it worked in this list of situations" is specious. It's a
form of induction.
Argument by the speaker claiming authority is specious. It's a form of
induction.
Argument by the speaker claiming authority via experience is specious.
It's a form of induction.
Privacy.
It's pointless and distracting.
If you're curious about induction A) it was shown not to work by Hume a few
hundred years ago B) Popper solved the problem of replacing it C) The
Frabric of Reality by David Deutsch, esp chaps 3 and 7 explains the subject
very well.
If you're *really* curious I'll copy/paste an explanation I wrote below.
I'm not expecting anyone to read it or discuss it, I'm just offering it as
information to those who want.
***WARNING: The Below Is Off-Topic For This List And May Be Boring***
Induction goes like this. You make a bunch of observations. You
generalize them into a theory. You make more observations to test the
theory. If they fit, then you have a good theory. This is impossible, has
never happened, and wouldn't work.
The first problem is that **any finite set of observations can support an
infinite number of theories**. So how do you generalize observations into
one theory when there are infinite choices? You don't.
The next problem is that no matter how many white socks I find, there may
always be a black one somewhere else. It can't prove anything. It can't
even make something more likely. There is no valid way to establish that
something is even more likely based on numerous observations.
Since induction can't happen and wouldn't work, you're probably wonder what
does work. This is called the Problem of Induction, it's the one Popper
solved. Here is the process that knowledge is actually created by (notice
that its evolution):
Step 1: Problem/Question
Step 2: Conjectures/Theories/Explanations. It does not matter how you come
up with them, or who comes up with them. The more the better.
Step 3: Criticism. Find flaws in theories and reject those. Any theory
with any flaw at all is wrong (although a similar theory with one change
may still be right). This is where observations come in, as one form of
criticism. But logic and argument are also useful criticisms.
Step 4: Alter your worldview to incorporate your new theory that survived
criticism in place of the old one.
Step 5: New Problem
The key points are that it doesn't matter who comes up with an idea. There
is no authority involved, and claiming "my theories are right b/c of
experience in the world" is obvious specious. Authority and Experience
making someone right only makes any sense at all to inductionists. What
makes people right is that all the rival theories fail to criticism, and
their own theory does not.
Note theories are basically explanations. Also that accepted theories are
not "proven" or even established as "likely" but simply the best and only
theory that makes sense. As soon as some problem with this theory comes
up, the process starts over to discover a better one.
[email protected]
On Sun, 28 Apr 2002 17:53:15 -0700 "Elliot Temple" <curi@...>
writes:
Dar
writes:
> Induction goes like this. You make a bunch of observations. YouHow about gravity?
> generalize them into a theory. You make more observations to test
> the
> theory. If they fit, then you have a good theory. This is
> impossible, has
> never happened, and wouldn't work.
Dar
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/28/2002 5:47:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
curi@... writes:
situations and receiving a bunch of suggestions and ideas from lots of
different people -- that is what we are HERE for. So I wonder what someone
would be here for if they don't want to hear that stuff.
specifics. It is observing the world around you and noticing specific things
and putting them all together to reach some general conclusion. An example
would be that you look around and notice that those kids who learn math from
math textbooks usually don't seem to have good conceptual understanding so
you conclude that learning math from textbooks doesn't usually result in good
mathematical understanding. Your conclusion is only as good as your
observations and your ability to generalize.
It is as opposed to deduction which is coming up with specifics based on some
generalized principle. So you already HAVE some general principle and you
hold to that and conclude things based on that. If your general principle is
that kids learn best from textbooks, then you might conclude that your kid
should use a math textbook if you want him to learn math the best way
possible. Your conclusion is only as good as your starting principle and your
ability to apply it.
explain it in plain English. I think it is just a way of intimidating really
good concientious parents.
--pamS
Some of what is said here may challenge you, shock you, disturb you, or seem
harsh. But remember that people are offering it to be helpful and what feels
uncomfortable to you might be just what someone else needed to hear.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
curi@... writes:
> notWhat would be a "bad" question?
> get sucked into responding to bad questions should any occur. So I'll do
> it.
> Reasons:Sharing ideas of what worked and what didn't work and analysing the
>
> Argument by "it worked in this list of situations" is specious. It's a
> form of induction.
>
situations and receiving a bunch of suggestions and ideas from lots of
different people -- that is what we are HERE for. So I wonder what someone
would be here for if they don't want to hear that stuff.
> Argument by the speaker claiming authority is specious. It's a form ofInduction is nothing more than coming up with a theory based on a bunch of
> induction.
>
specifics. It is observing the world around you and noticing specific things
and putting them all together to reach some general conclusion. An example
would be that you look around and notice that those kids who learn math from
math textbooks usually don't seem to have good conceptual understanding so
you conclude that learning math from textbooks doesn't usually result in good
mathematical understanding. Your conclusion is only as good as your
observations and your ability to generalize.
It is as opposed to deduction which is coming up with specifics based on some
generalized principle. So you already HAVE some general principle and you
hold to that and conclude things based on that. If your general principle is
that kids learn best from textbooks, then you might conclude that your kid
should use a math textbook if you want him to learn math the best way
possible. Your conclusion is only as good as your starting principle and your
ability to apply it.
> Argument by the speaker claiming authority via experience is specious.I'll still choose the experienced surgeon over the inexperienced one.
> It's a form of induction.
>
> Privacy.I read it. I suggest that if any of it really made sense you would be able to
>
> It's pointless and distracting.
>
> If you're curious about induction A) it was shown not to work by Hume a few
> hundred years ago B) Popper solved the problem of replacing it C) The
> Frabric of Reality by David Deutsch, esp chaps 3 and 7 explains the subject
> very well.
>
> If you're *really* curious I'll copy/paste an explanation I wrote below.
> I'm not expecting anyone to read it or discuss it, I'm just offering it as
> information to those who want.
explain it in plain English. I think it is just a way of intimidating really
good concientious parents.
--pamS
Some of what is said here may challenge you, shock you, disturb you, or seem
harsh. But remember that people are offering it to be helpful and what feels
uncomfortable to you might be just what someone else needed to hear.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Fetteroll
on 4/28/02 8:53 PM, Elliot Temple at curi@... wrote:
that:
philosophical terms) not that it didn't work.
All he was saying, I beleive, is that just because the sun has risen every
day of our lives doesn't *prove* that it will rise tomorrow. That doesn't
mean that we can't observe and come up with a theory that will provide us
with a fairly high sense of confidence that we would be right in assuming
the sun will rise tomorrow.
It would be impossible to function without inductive reasoning. My bed could
turn into a tiger while I sleep. The light switch could move. Electrons
could grow to large to run through the wires.
But I've induced from a bunch of observations that none of those will
happen. And thus I am able to sleep peacefully at night unbothered by such
irrational thoughts.
It seems to me parenting difficulties don't arise from inductive reasoning
-- which I think school tries its darnedest to train out of us: we're taught
to trust what we're told and ignore what we observe -- but from deductive
reasoning. (Thank you Pam for that succinct explanation of something I
undoubtedly learned in school but had filed away as noise with no practical
purpose.)
The generally accepted rule is that school is where children learn best,
therefore I should send my child to school if I want her to learn best. The
generally accepted rule is that control of children prevents them from doing
bad things until they are old enough to control themselves, therefore I must
control my child if I don't want her to do bad things.
Which is why many unschoolers ask "why" questions of newbies. Trying to free
them from being trapped by deductive reasoning based on false assumptions
and learn how to inductively reason again. :-)
(Even from ridiculousness comes learning <eg>)
Joyce
> If you're curious about induction A) it was shown not to work by Hume a fewHume also noted (http://www.dur.ac.uk/~dfl0www/modules/kandr/rfh/KR7.HTM)
> hundred years ago B) Popper solved the problem of replacing it C) The
> Frabric of Reality by David Deutsch, esp chaps 3 and 7 explains the subject
> very well.
> Induction goes like this. You make a bunch of observations. You
> generalize them into a theory. You make more observations to test the
> theory. If they fit, then you have a good theory. This is impossible, has
> never happened, and wouldn't work.
that:
>> Inductive reasoning is instinctive:Apparently what Hume argued was that induction wasn't *rational* (in
>> animals, children and idiots do it (e.g. Pavlov's dogs)
>>
>> Inductive reasoning is necessary in practical life:
>> We cannot get by without expectations of the future
>>
>> The belief that the future will be like the past is a natural belief it is
>> instinctive, necessary and not capable of justification.
philosophical terms) not that it didn't work.
All he was saying, I beleive, is that just because the sun has risen every
day of our lives doesn't *prove* that it will rise tomorrow. That doesn't
mean that we can't observe and come up with a theory that will provide us
with a fairly high sense of confidence that we would be right in assuming
the sun will rise tomorrow.
It would be impossible to function without inductive reasoning. My bed could
turn into a tiger while I sleep. The light switch could move. Electrons
could grow to large to run through the wires.
But I've induced from a bunch of observations that none of those will
happen. And thus I am able to sleep peacefully at night unbothered by such
irrational thoughts.
It seems to me parenting difficulties don't arise from inductive reasoning
-- which I think school tries its darnedest to train out of us: we're taught
to trust what we're told and ignore what we observe -- but from deductive
reasoning. (Thank you Pam for that succinct explanation of something I
undoubtedly learned in school but had filed away as noise with no practical
purpose.)
The generally accepted rule is that school is where children learn best,
therefore I should send my child to school if I want her to learn best. The
generally accepted rule is that control of children prevents them from doing
bad things until they are old enough to control themselves, therefore I must
control my child if I don't want her to do bad things.
Which is why many unschoolers ask "why" questions of newbies. Trying to free
them from being trapped by deductive reasoning based on false assumptions
and learn how to inductively reason again. :-)
(Even from ridiculousness comes learning <eg>)
Joyce
Elliot Temple
From: "Fetteroll" <fetteroll@...>
mentioned him because he deserved some credit. *shrugs*
authority, then David Deutsch the famous quantum physicist says it.
*shrugs*
after Hume, other attacks have been added to point out induction doesn't
exist, couldn't exist, etc
There is a way to tentatively except the theory that the sun will rise
tommorow. This is to explain how orbits work, how the sun gives off light,
how telescopes work, etc
If the *only* thing you had to work with was observations of the sun
rising, you wouldn't know if it would happen the next day. Because you
don't know what the explanation is. Perhaps the sun is an alien
space-craft and will leave the next day. You don't know.
If you can't, the theory they won't wins out.
And, BTW, the light switch COULD move, but its extraordinarily unlikely.
the properties of your bedroom, this kind of thing is, depending on the
specifics, extraordinarily unlikely (like the chance you fall into your bed
and die) or impossible (spontaneous creation of matter in tiger form).
It's a class one philisophical error. It creates massive problems in
almost all a person's theories.
authority is they were smart in the past, so they will be in the future, so
they are probably right.
-- but from deductive
are one of the very worst things on the planet as far as learning goes. In
real life, schools hold that coercion causes learning.
I'm suggesting.
And once more: For any finite set of obserations, there are an infinite
number of logically consistent theories. So, how does induction work? How
do you pick which one? In truth, you are looking at these observations for
inspiration, and seeking an *explanation* for why certain patterns may be
there. For example you see no tigers in your bed-room over and over, and
you explain this by considering the properties of bedrooms, and the
properties of tigers, and the laws of physics.
> on 4/28/02 8:53 PM, Elliot Temple at curi@... wrote:few
>
> > If you're curious about induction A) it was shown not to work by Hume a
> > hundred years ago B) Popper solved the problem of replacing it C)The
> > Frabric of Reality by David Deutsch, esp chaps 3 and 7 explains thesubject
> > very well.has
>
> > Induction goes like this. You make a bunch of observations. You
> > generalize them into a theory. You make more observations to test the
> > theory. If they fit, then you have a good theory. This is impossible,
> > never happened, and wouldn't work.OK, forget Hume. I don't care what he said. I'll speak instead. I only
>
> Hume also noted (http://www.dur.ac.uk/~dfl0www/modules/kandr/rfh/KR7.HTM)
> that:
mentioned him because he deserved some credit. *shrugs*
>it is
> >> Inductive reasoning is instinctive:
> >> animals, children and idiots do it (e.g. Pavlov's dogs)
> >>
> >> Inductive reasoning is necessary in practical life:
> >> We cannot get by without expectations of the future
> >>
> >> The belief that the future will be like the past is a natural belief
> >> instinctive, necessary and not capable of justification.OK, then *I* am saying that induction doesn't work. If you're into
>
> Apparently what Hume argued was that induction wasn't *rational* (in
> philosophical terms) not that it didn't work.
authority, then David Deutsch the famous quantum physicist says it.
*shrugs*
> All he was saying, I beleive, is that just because the sun has risenevery
> day of our lives doesn't *prove* that it will rise tomorrow.Right. That's the whole point. Induction doesn't offer proof. Then,
after Hume, other attacks have been added to point out induction doesn't
exist, couldn't exist, etc
> It doesn't.There is no way to establish liklihoods, degrees of confidence, etc
> mean that we can't observe and come up with a theory that will provide us
> with a fairly high sense of confidence that we would be right in assuming
> the sun will rise tomorrow.
There is a way to tentatively except the theory that the sun will rise
tommorow. This is to explain how orbits work, how the sun gives off light,
how telescopes work, etc
If the *only* thing you had to work with was observations of the sun
rising, you wouldn't know if it would happen the next day. Because you
don't know what the explanation is. Perhaps the sun is an alien
space-craft and will leave the next day. You don't know.
> It would be impossible to function without inductive reasoning. My bedcould
> turn into a tiger while I sleep. The light switch could move. ElectronsWould you give an explanation of why any of those would or could happen?
> could grow to large to run through the wires.
If you can't, the theory they won't wins out.
And, BTW, the light switch COULD move, but its extraordinarily unlikely.
> But I've induced from a bunch of observations that none of those willsuch
> happen. And thus I am able to sleep peacefully at night unbothered by
> irrational thoughts.No, you've explained that, given the laws of physics you know about, and
the properties of your bedroom, this kind of thing is, depending on the
specifics, extraordinarily unlikely (like the chance you fall into your bed
and die) or impossible (spontaneous creation of matter in tiger form).
> It seems to me parenting difficulties don't arise from inductivereasoning
It's a class one philisophical error. It creates massive problems in
almost all a person's theories.
> -- which I think school tries its darnedest to train out of us: we'retaught
> to trust what we're told and ignore what we observeListening to authorities *IS* inductive reasoning. The idea of an
authority is they were smart in the past, so they will be in the future, so
they are probably right.
-- but from deductive
> reasoning. (Thank you Pam for that succinct explanation of something Ipractical
> undoubtedly learned in school but had filed away as noise with no
> purpose.)If schools understood any of what I'm talking about they would realize they
are one of the very worst things on the planet as far as learning goes. In
real life, schools hold that coercion causes learning.
> The generally accepted rule is that school is where children learn best,The
> therefore I should send my child to school if I want her to learn best.
> generally accepted rule is that control of children prevents them fromdoing
> bad things until they are old enough to control themselves, therefore Imust
> control my child if I don't want her to do bad things.So you agree parents shouldn't try to control their children? Great! :-)
> Which is why many unschoolers ask "why" questions of newbies. Trying tofree
> them from being trapped by deductive reasoning based on false assumptionsWhy questions, it seems to me, ask for explanations. Which is exactly what
> and learn how to inductively reason again. :-)
I'm suggesting.
And once more: For any finite set of obserations, there are an infinite
number of logically consistent theories. So, how does induction work? How
do you pick which one? In truth, you are looking at these observations for
inspiration, and seeking an *explanation* for why certain patterns may be
there. For example you see no tigers in your bed-room over and over, and
you explain this by considering the properties of bedrooms, and the
properties of tigers, and the laws of physics.
[email protected]
<<OK, forget Hume. I don't care what he said. I'll speak instead. I only
mentioned him because he deserved some credit. *shrugs*>>
I think people should not waste this list's time putting forth ideas they
cannot or will not support. And to quote experts to support your argument
and then throw off the experts when the bluff fails is a full-on waste of
time.
<< OK, then *I* am saying that induction doesn't work. If you're into
authority, then David Deutsch the famous quantum physicist says it.
*shrugs* >>
Living with one's own biological offspring isn't a matter for physicists'
opinions. If people want assistance, they go to parents. Are you a parent?
<< Right. That's the whole point. Induction doesn't offer proof. Then,
after Hume, other attacks have been added to point out induction doesn't
exist, couldn't exist, etc>>
"Doesn't offer proof" is a mathematical assertion. If something is "not
proven" it has a simple logical meaning. It does *NOT* mean that it has
proven false.
<<There is no way to establish liklihoods, degrees of confidence, etc>>
It's likely you haven't really thought through this so much as you're
repeating what you've read or heard. Why?
<<If the *only* thing you had to work with was observations of the sun
rising, you wouldn't know if it would happen the next day. Because you
don't know what the explanation is. Perhaps the sun is an alien
space-craft and will leave the next day. You don't know.>>
True, if you were born yesterday, or if you have no trust whatsoever in the
experiences of people around you or your own observations.
<<And, BTW, the light switch COULD move, but its extraordinarily unlikely.>>
You're basing your life on this stuff?
Do you have children?
<<It's a class one philisophical error. It creates massive problems in
almost all a person's theories.>>
Perhaps I have an irrational prejudice, but I think when someone's already
not clear on his or her own sources and defenses and can't spell philosophy,
that this is not a good source for philosophical information.
<<Listening to authorities *IS* inductive reasoning. The idea of an
authority is they were smart in the past, so they will be in the future, so
they are probably right.>>
So yesterday you thought Hume was smart, and one person's review causes you
to say
"OK, forget Hume. I don't care what he said. "
<<If schools understood any of what I'm talking about they would realize they
are one of the very worst things on the planet as far as learning goes. In
real life, schools hold that coercion causes learning.>>
You're telling the choir what a hymn book looks like.
<<So you agree parents shouldn't try to control their children? Great! :-)>>
Unschoolers have been saying that since before any of them heard of TCS, so
don't think it's anything you brought to bear.
<<Why questions, it seems to me, ask for explanations. Which is exactly what
I'm suggesting.>>
Why are you bringing TCS to this list without first reading to see what the
list is about?
Whey are you making assertions you can't defend?
Sandra
mentioned him because he deserved some credit. *shrugs*>>
I think people should not waste this list's time putting forth ideas they
cannot or will not support. And to quote experts to support your argument
and then throw off the experts when the bluff fails is a full-on waste of
time.
<< OK, then *I* am saying that induction doesn't work. If you're into
authority, then David Deutsch the famous quantum physicist says it.
*shrugs* >>
Living with one's own biological offspring isn't a matter for physicists'
opinions. If people want assistance, they go to parents. Are you a parent?
<< Right. That's the whole point. Induction doesn't offer proof. Then,
after Hume, other attacks have been added to point out induction doesn't
exist, couldn't exist, etc>>
"Doesn't offer proof" is a mathematical assertion. If something is "not
proven" it has a simple logical meaning. It does *NOT* mean that it has
proven false.
<<There is no way to establish liklihoods, degrees of confidence, etc>>
It's likely you haven't really thought through this so much as you're
repeating what you've read or heard. Why?
<<If the *only* thing you had to work with was observations of the sun
rising, you wouldn't know if it would happen the next day. Because you
don't know what the explanation is. Perhaps the sun is an alien
space-craft and will leave the next day. You don't know.>>
True, if you were born yesterday, or if you have no trust whatsoever in the
experiences of people around you or your own observations.
<<And, BTW, the light switch COULD move, but its extraordinarily unlikely.>>
You're basing your life on this stuff?
Do you have children?
<<It's a class one philisophical error. It creates massive problems in
almost all a person's theories.>>
Perhaps I have an irrational prejudice, but I think when someone's already
not clear on his or her own sources and defenses and can't spell philosophy,
that this is not a good source for philosophical information.
<<Listening to authorities *IS* inductive reasoning. The idea of an
authority is they were smart in the past, so they will be in the future, so
they are probably right.>>
So yesterday you thought Hume was smart, and one person's review causes you
to say
"OK, forget Hume. I don't care what he said. "
<<If schools understood any of what I'm talking about they would realize they
are one of the very worst things on the planet as far as learning goes. In
real life, schools hold that coercion causes learning.>>
You're telling the choir what a hymn book looks like.
<<So you agree parents shouldn't try to control their children? Great! :-)>>
Unschoolers have been saying that since before any of them heard of TCS, so
don't think it's anything you brought to bear.
<<Why questions, it seems to me, ask for explanations. Which is exactly what
I'm suggesting.>>
Why are you bringing TCS to this list without first reading to see what the
list is about?
Whey are you making assertions you can't defend?
Sandra
Fetteroll
on 4/29/02 6:41 AM, Elliot Temple at curi@... wrote:
doesn't work didn't make sense. I went and found out that wasn't what Hume
meant. Now what he says makes sense.
But that means you are not now making sense.
I think this inductive/deductive discussion began as an explanation of why
TCSers don't use real examples and talk about their kids. I do understand
the respect aspect.
But from my experience, hypotheticals don't generate the depth of
understanding that real examples do. Hypotheticals get "what if"ed to death
because anything is possible. The discussion remains on the actions and not
on the reasons for the actions. Standard parenting advice focuses on the
actions of the child and how to modify those actions. More mindful
parenting/less coercive parenting (without going to the rhetoric heavy TCS)
looks at why the child is doing something. And the why is absent from
hypothticals.
on one observation, and to know that I will need a fair number of pieces of
data before a pattern emerges. I can't know anything with 100% certainty.
But I don't understand why you're insisting that 100% certainty is enough. I
can't even be 100% certain my name is Joyce Fetteroll, for that matter, but
I keep on using it because it's proven it's usefulness over time.
Unless I'm a scientist needing to convince others, I can confidently accept
a theory based purely on a great deal of observation. It's nice to know the
why behind it, but it isn't necessary in order to place confidence in it and
to base daily decisions on. (Should I make contingency plans on the sun not
rising tomorrow?)
You say:
confidence, etc?
proven themselves right. I think they do so because they've been coerced
into it. They are trained to rely on experts. They are trained to not trust
their own powers of observation and reasoning. They are trained to even
ignore conflicting data that refutes the expert's theory.
would be a good idea to read for a while to see what some people here
actually think.
on second viewing.
I might conceded that my limited imagination will prevent me from seeing
more than one "logically consistent theory" that I could draw from the
pattern of sun rising each morning for years and years, but I don't think
it's my imagination limiting me from understanding how there could be an
infinite number of logically consistent theories.
Now, if the data set were severly restricted to one or two instances, lots
more theories would be possible, but it would be rather silly to base a
theory on such limited information. So that's not making sense.
ability to express reality than it is about how we actually deal with
reality.
Joyce
> OK, then *I* am saying that induction doesn't work. If you're intoI am into things that make sense. That anyone would say inductive reasoning
> authority, then David Deutsch the famous quantum physicist says it.
> *shrugs*
doesn't work didn't make sense. I went and found out that wasn't what Hume
meant. Now what he says makes sense.
But that means you are not now making sense.
I think this inductive/deductive discussion began as an explanation of why
TCSers don't use real examples and talk about their kids. I do understand
the respect aspect.
But from my experience, hypotheticals don't generate the depth of
understanding that real examples do. Hypotheticals get "what if"ed to death
because anything is possible. The discussion remains on the actions and not
on the reasons for the actions. Standard parenting advice focuses on the
actions of the child and how to modify those actions. More mindful
parenting/less coercive parenting (without going to the rhetoric heavy TCS)
looks at why the child is doing something. And the why is absent from
hypothticals.
> If the *only* thing you had to work with was observations of the sunI think I've lived long enough to know that I can't develop a useful theory
> rising, you wouldn't know if it would happen the next day. Because you
> don't know what the explanation is. Perhaps the sun is an alien
> space-craft and will leave the next day. You don't know.
on one observation, and to know that I will need a fair number of pieces of
data before a pattern emerges. I can't know anything with 100% certainty.
But I don't understand why you're insisting that 100% certainty is enough. I
can't even be 100% certain my name is Joyce Fetteroll, for that matter, but
I keep on using it because it's proven it's usefulness over time.
Unless I'm a scientist needing to convince others, I can confidently accept
a theory based purely on a great deal of observation. It's nice to know the
why behind it, but it isn't necessary in order to place confidence in it and
to base daily decisions on. (Should I make contingency plans on the sun not
rising tomorrow?)
You say:
> There is no way to establish liklihoods, degrees of confidence, etcAnd then you say:
> And, BTW, the light switch COULD move, but its extraordinarily unlikely.Didn't you just say there's no way to establish likelihoods, degrees of
confidence, etc?
> Listening to authorities *IS* inductive reasoning. The idea of anI don't think children accept adults as authorities because adults have
> authority is they were smart in the past, so they will be in the future, so
> they are probably right.
proven themselves right. I think they do so because they've been coerced
into it. They are trained to rely on experts. They are trained to not trust
their own powers of observation and reasoning. They are trained to even
ignore conflicting data that refutes the expert's theory.
> So you agree parents shouldn't try to control their children? Great! :-)I believe it was stated pretty clearly before the posting began that it
would be a good idea to read for a while to see what some people here
actually think.
> Why questions, it seems to me, ask for explanations. Which is exactly whatThen I'm not sure what all the rhetoric is about.
> I'm suggesting.
> For any finite set of obserations, there are an infiniteI ignored that before because it makes no sense. Doesn't make any more sense
> number of logically consistent theories.
on second viewing.
I might conceded that my limited imagination will prevent me from seeing
more than one "logically consistent theory" that I could draw from the
pattern of sun rising each morning for years and years, but I don't think
it's my imagination limiting me from understanding how there could be an
infinite number of logically consistent theories.
Now, if the data set were severly restricted to one or two instances, lots
more theories would be possible, but it would be rather silly to base a
theory on such limited information. So that's not making sense.
> So, how does induction work? HowThis is seeming to be a whole lot more about the limitations of langauge's
> do you pick which one? In truth, you are looking at these observations for
> inspiration, and seeking an *explanation* for why certain patterns may be
> there. For example you see no tigers in your bed-room over and over, and
> you explain this by considering the properties of bedrooms, and the
> properties of tigers, and the laws of physics.
ability to express reality than it is about how we actually deal with
reality.
Joyce
Elliot Temple
From: "Fetteroll" <fetteroll@...>
"You say:
confidence, etc?"
---------
What I meant was, "Given our current theories of physics, the lightswitch
moving would be extraordinary unlikely. If our current theories of physics
turn out to be wrong, then its technically possible it might not be an
unlikely event. I cannot prove how likely it is. But my best theories
suggest its very unlikely."
--------
you wrote:
"I might conceded that my limited imagination will prevent me from seeing
more than one "logically consistent theory" that I could draw from the
pattern of sun rising each morning for years and years, but I don't think
it's my imagination limiting me from understanding how there could be an
infinite number of logically consistent theories."
You're assuming the sun goes in an elipse (we'll pretend the earth is
stationary to make discussion easier, it doesn't really make much
difference given relativity). You're assuming the sun doesn't teleport.
You're observations don't prove this, you only believe it b/c of
explanation. If you let it wander anywhere in the sky you'll have an
easier time coming up with theories. A theory could be ANY function for
predicting where the sun will be that happens to work for all known data
points. So specificy all the important ones by hand, and then your
function can do anything at all for the non-observed points. Example
follows:
(t is time in minutes since whenever you wanted me to start, and the
position of the sun will be 3 numbers x/y/z)
f(t) = 47t/ 33y/ 99z (or ANY other numbers, hence the infinite
theories claim)
except on certain inputs do something else:
for t=2, 45/23/11 (fill in numbers from an observation)
for t=7, 12/345/33 (again use the real numbers from an observation)
(continue list for every observation on your list)
Haven't you ever seen a graph with open-points on a line and the data point
somewhere else? Like the function x=y except if x=2, then y=44.
The point is you cannot figure out anything solely based on observations.
Nothing at all! Not even "good enough" or "non-absurd" theories. Only
explanations work (and the explanations DO take into account the
observations, among other things).
"You say:
> There is no way to establish liklihoods, degrees of confidence, etcAnd then you say:
> And, BTW, the light switch COULD move, but its extraordinarily unlikely.Didn't you just say there's no way to establish likelihoods, degrees of
confidence, etc?"
---------
What I meant was, "Given our current theories of physics, the lightswitch
moving would be extraordinary unlikely. If our current theories of physics
turn out to be wrong, then its technically possible it might not be an
unlikely event. I cannot prove how likely it is. But my best theories
suggest its very unlikely."
--------
you wrote:
"I might conceded that my limited imagination will prevent me from seeing
more than one "logically consistent theory" that I could draw from the
pattern of sun rising each morning for years and years, but I don't think
it's my imagination limiting me from understanding how there could be an
infinite number of logically consistent theories."
You're assuming the sun goes in an elipse (we'll pretend the earth is
stationary to make discussion easier, it doesn't really make much
difference given relativity). You're assuming the sun doesn't teleport.
You're observations don't prove this, you only believe it b/c of
explanation. If you let it wander anywhere in the sky you'll have an
easier time coming up with theories. A theory could be ANY function for
predicting where the sun will be that happens to work for all known data
points. So specificy all the important ones by hand, and then your
function can do anything at all for the non-observed points. Example
follows:
(t is time in minutes since whenever you wanted me to start, and the
position of the sun will be 3 numbers x/y/z)
f(t) = 47t/ 33y/ 99z (or ANY other numbers, hence the infinite
theories claim)
except on certain inputs do something else:
for t=2, 45/23/11 (fill in numbers from an observation)
for t=7, 12/345/33 (again use the real numbers from an observation)
(continue list for every observation on your list)
Haven't you ever seen a graph with open-points on a line and the data point
somewhere else? Like the function x=y except if x=2, then y=44.
The point is you cannot figure out anything solely based on observations.
Nothing at all! Not even "good enough" or "non-absurd" theories. Only
explanations work (and the explanations DO take into account the
observations, among other things).
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/29/02 4:01:46 PM, curi@... writes:
<< The point is you cannot figure out anything solely based on observations.
Nothing at all! Not even "good enough" or "non-absurd" theories. Only
explanations work (and the explanations DO take into account the
observations, among other things). >>
This seems to make verbal constructs supreme over non-verbal thought. Why?
<< The point is you cannot figure out anything solely based on observations.
Nothing at all! Not even "good enough" or "non-absurd" theories. Only
explanations work (and the explanations DO take into account the
observations, among other things). >>
This seems to make verbal constructs supreme over non-verbal thought. Why?