Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
#10989 01/31/06 05:12 AM
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 127
Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 127
~ The philosopher Carl G. Hempel, in his 1965 essay ?Studies in the Logic of Confirmation,? brought to light a central paradox in the scientific method as it is commonly understood.
The problem is with inductive reasoning, and Hempel?s example was as follows: Suppose you see a raven, and you note that it is black. ?Hmm,? you say, ?that raven was black.? Sometime later you notice a couple more ravens, and they too are black. ?What a coincidence,? you remark, ?those ravens are black too.? Time goes by and you see many more ravens. And it happens that all the ravens you see are black. ?This is beyond coincidence,? you might reasonably think, and with the instincts of a good and observant scientist you form a hypothesis: All ravens are black.

http://www.paradoxes.info/TheRavens.html

Paradox or fallacy?
Sincerely,


"My God, it's full of stars!" -2010
.
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
The problem of induction goes back a good deal farther than Hempel. Hume is among the earliest framers of the problem. It has been resolved, I think, by Karl Popper by rephrasing it. Check out his book "Objective Knowledge."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsificationism

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 175
R
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
R
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 175
Or Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery , which was originally published in German in 1934.

From what I recall the section that you would be interested in refers to swans rather then ravens.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
There is nothing wrong with stating "Based on my observations over the past X years in a particular geographical region it appears that all ravens are black." That is a valid observation and stands as a fact.

The problem is when one then makes a leap of faith and states what has not been observed "All ravens everywhere, even places I've never been, have black ravens."

This is not a paradox. This is a failure to use a brain properly.


DA Morgan
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
An astronomer, a physicist and a mathematician (it is said) were holidaying in Scotland. Glancing from a train window, they observed a black sheep in the middle of a field.

"How interesting," observed the astronomer, "all scottish sheep are black!"

To which the physicist responded, "No, no! Some Scottish sheep are black!"

The mathematician gazed heavenward, and then intoned, "In Scotland there exists at least one field, containing at least one sheep, at least one side of which is black."

Blacknad.

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Inductive reasoning is fine as long as we refer to branch of Knowledge with well defined boundaries.
Precise Inductive reasoning is not available in Real World where things are just non-linear.
It is very organic and adaptable for the convinience of Observer.
Inductive reasoning is an unbreakable law in Boolean Maths(and hence also in Physics) but not in Real World.

Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 12
B
Bee Offline
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
B
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 12
The ironic thing is that I have a picture of a white (albino) raven on my comp lol well I have no web site to upload it to, so here at the following link there is a picture of a white raven on the web site as well as the notion that they're really not all that rare..
http://www.pcug.org.au/~lindafrd/
What a great way to show that even one raven could throw a perfectly good theory right out the window..


**newsflash! the flight of the Bumblebee doesn't defy the laws of science after all! makes me wonder what else is possible that we may think defies science now but doesn't?*... and the Bumblebee still flies..
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
I wouldn't call a poorly worded theory "perfectly good."


DA Morgan
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 12
B
Bee Offline
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
B
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 12
hairsplitter :p seriously, my point was that even one contradiction can wreck a theory (if it's too narrowly defined) the "all ravens are black" could have been argued untill your foot fell off, right up to that raven that's not black. Of course you're right that a scientist that would make that theory is neither very good nor very observant.. but what about some matters a little less tangible than ravens?


**newsflash! the flight of the Bumblebee doesn't defy the laws of science after all! makes me wonder what else is possible that we may think defies science now but doesn't?*... and the Bumblebee still flies..
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Bee asks:
"but what about some matters a little less tangible than ravens?"

A good question. And to answer it perhaps one should look at how politicians mince and spin words and phrases to mislead.

Not to move too far afield but look at the claims of the Bush administration with respect to spying on Americans. The administration claims it needs to eavesdrop in order to catch terrorists. I haven't found too many people that disagree with that (though some do). What they carefully step around and over is whether they should seek permission before or immediately after doing so. By ignoring the dead elephant in the room, asking permission, they attempt to change the conversation into one in which most people agree with the statement ... but it is irrelevant to the issue.

I think black ravens are similar. If one spin-doctors words one can say: "All ravens are black" and then, if caught up in a CNN interview with videotape showing a white raven can claim "You are quoting me out of context."

I hate to quote someone for whom I have no respect, Rush Limbaugh, but words have meaning. And when we fail to use them properly we corrupt communication. The only question remaining is whether the intent is intentional or not.


DA Morgan

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5