Re: faith, and induction as an argument (a troll is _not_ a troll)

Gazelem wrote:
> joseph_daniel_zukiger@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > I declare this to be on topic, because so many arguments on s.r.m so
> > often include the assertion of the idea that starting with conclusion
> > is somehow wrong. (If for no other reason.)
> >
> > Notice at the bottom of the page, the author points out that Lavoisier
> > did not arrive at the law of conservation by induction. He assumed
> > that mass was conserved, and then assembled data to show his
> > assumption, even throwing out data that did not match as "failed
> > experiments".
>
> Perhaps if we exited the scope of the newsgroup a little further we could
> perhaps venture to suppose that Newton sat under the apple tree to wait for
> an apple to drop on him!
>
> Just because someone discovered a correct fact using wrong methods, doesn't
> justify the method, it means he got lucky to have not been proven wrong. A
> conclusion is not a theory, its a decided end.

Just want to clarify something. Do you see Lavoisier to have been using
the wrong methods, and to have been "lucky not to have been proven
wrong"?

(I would say that if he were lucky, the luck would have been in
choosing the correct hypothesis. Of course, Einstein did show that
there are theoretical limits to the principle of conservation.)

Since I won't be around to respond, I'll point out that the ideal of
orderly science is exactly that and no more -- just a human ideal. Real
science is nothing like that. Step-by-step is more like starts and
stutters and sudden jumps. Careful proof tends to forget the corner
cases, and not even see the corners of the corner cases. Peer review is
an excellent tool, but it also goes south from time to time because of
politics. None of our tools can approach God, and none of our tools can
approach absolute truth without help.

> [...]
> I have seen a lot of trolling going on in S. R. M. lately, It all started
> off as so inviting, a chance to talk to people about the issues of
> mormonism. [...]

In my somewhat biased opinion, newsgroups are little more than a series
of trolls. Hey, we want to talk, we put some bait on a hook and throw
the line in the waiter. Some of the trolls are irritating, but that's
part of conversation. (Not saying I don't get frustrated myself
sometimes. The post you found to be a troll was partially a result of
certain frustrations I've been feeling.)

.

Relevant Pages