Is Statistical Induction a Proof?

[T_aquaticus]

@ThomasTrebilco

I don’t think that is quite right.

After some additional reading, I would agree:

In a previous post about how to interpret P values correctly, I showed how a common misconception about interpreting P values produces the illusion of substantially more evidence against the null hypothesis than is justified. For example, a P value near 0.05 often has a false positive error rate of between 23-50%. These greater than expected false positive rates create serious doubts about trusting results that are statistically significant.
https://statisticsbyjim.com/hypothesis-testing/p-value-tips-false-positives-misleading-results/

I should have couched it in terms of rejecting the null hypothesis instead of false positives.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@faded_Glory

You should do, because your inductive conclusion that water boils at 212F degrees is incorrect in its general sense. In the lab you could vary the ambient pressure at which you boil the water, and you would notice that it only boils at that temperature at one specific pressure

@faded_Glory

The wording of my original narrative INCLUDED the provision “replication with identical variables”.

So… in this new scenario: imagine laboratory replication where identical containers are used, identical atmospheric pressure, identical volumes, etc etc etc.

Boiling water gets replicated 3,333 times. And the answer is always 212 degrees.

[John_Harshman]

@gbrooks9

Boiling water gets replicated 3,333 times. And the answer is always 212 degrees.

No matter how many times you do it, you still need induction to tell you that it’s going to happen that way the next time you try it. How is that not clear? You don’t seem to know what induction is.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@John_Harshman

No matter how many times you do it, you still need induction to tell you that it’s going to happen that way the next time you try it. How is that not clear? You don’t seem to know what induction is.

@John_Harshman

How would YOU differentiate and label the difference between assertions like water boils at 212 F in “x” minutes (with normal assumptions)

VERSUS

Human perception confirms that watching a pot of water CHANGES how long it takes for water to boil

If readers are unanimous that both positions are Inductive… then we need to bring academic insights to bear … and categorize how the 2 rival narratives are DIFFERENT.

[faded_Glory]

One is correct and the other is false?

[T_aquaticus]

@gbrooks9

Boiling water gets replicated 3,333 times. And the answer is always 212 degrees.

A scientist would be looking for standard error and standard deviation.

What conclusions are you making with reference to these observations? How would those conclusions be phrased in a deductive and inductive argument?

[T_aquaticus]

@gbrooks9

@T_aquaticus has been so focused on trying to invalidate my “thought experiment” analogy, that he added a statistical element to my hypothetical narrative.

Not at all. What I have been doing is pointing out that you are using inductive reasoning. That’s it.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@T_aquaticus

What conclusions are you making with reference to these observations? How would those conclusions be phrased in a deductive and inductive argument?

@T_aquaticus

I can see that this is a huge area of misunderstandings. But that is why I am not going to give up until somebody can apply correct labels for what ARE the important distinctions.

The world confidently believes that water boils at 212 F. How is that different from saying: I can tell when something is designed… like flagella!

A REVISION TO THE HYPOTHETICAL CASE
Let me change the scenario to HOW LONG it takes for water to boil. “X” minutes vs. how long it takes if you WATCH the water pot.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@T_aquaticus

Not at all. What I have been doing is pointing out that you are using inductive reasoning. That’s it.

@T_aquaticus

I will believe it when you describe the nature of the DIFFERENCE between Behe’s conclusion and @swamidass’ conclusion.

[T_aquaticus]

@gbrooks9

I can see that this is a huge area of misunderstandings. But that is why I am not going to give up until somebody can apply correct labels for what ARE the important distinctions.

That gets right to the heart of the misunderstanding. Remember this bit from the opening post?

Should we post this paragraph on Statistical Syllogism as an example of INDUCTION, and how FLAWED “Inductive Conclusions” can be?!

Your boiling water thought experiment is a statistically based inductive conclusion. If you are saying that all pure water boils at 100 C (+/- measurement error) at 1 atmosphere across the whole universe based on your experiments, then you are using an inductive argument.

What we have been saying all along is that statistically based inductive arguments can be very convincing, and can even be more convincing than a deductive argument in many cases.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@T_aquaticus

What we have been saying all along is that statistically based inductive arguments can be very convincing, and can even be more convincing than a deductive argument in many cases.

@T_aquaticus

So what is the difference between 3000 replications of bringing water to a boil in “x” minutes (assuming identical cariables)…

Versus

Someone saying watching a pot of water changes “x” minutes to non-x minutes?

[T_aquaticus]

@gbrooks9

So what is the difference between 3000 replications of bringing water to a boil in “x” minutes (assuming identical cariables)…

Versus

Someone saying watching a pot of water changes “x” minutes to non-x minutes?

The difference would be the methodology.

You need to include a bit more on the methods and results of the second option, and you also need to include the reasoning and conclusions used in both instances.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@T_aquaticus

The difference would be the methodology.

@T_aquaticus

Oh mannnn… what a conclusion!

It doesnt seem to help for ME to add the missing pieces. Im asking one of you BRIGHT FELLERS to add the missing piece that makes it clear how Behe-like methodology differs from science!

[T_aquaticus]

@gbrooks9

Oh mannnn… what a conclusion!

Says the person who doesn’t include a conclusion. What conclusions are you trying to draw with each example? Are you using inductive or deductive reasoning to reach that conclusion?

@gbrooks9

Im asking one of you BRIGHT FELLERS to add the missing piece that makes it clear how Behe-like methodology differs from science!

If anything, Behe’s argument suffers from being a deductive argument.

Michael Behe is able to determine if something looks designed.
If something looks designed, then it is designed.
Life looks designed.
Therefore, life is designed.

[John_Harshman]

First, assertions aren’t inductive. Arguments are inductive. If you draw conclusions about unobserved events from observation of events you think are similar, that’s induction. In order to make your first claim induction, you would have to talk about the evidence that led to the assertion. I suppose the second claim is induction of a sort, given that “human perception” appears to be a statement about observation.

Anyway, the difference between them is not that one is induction while the other isn’t. What was your point?

[faded_Glory]

@gbrooks9

Im asking one of you BRIGHT FELLERS to add the missing piece that makes it clear how Behe-like methodology differs from science!

Answers have already been given in this thread. Behe doesn’t use all of the relevant evidence in his inductive argument. He makes an inference but he fails to construct a model that leads to testable hypotheses. Instead of building a positive case for intelligent design, he makes the negative claim that evolution couldn’t have done it. Fundamentally, he makes an argument from ignorance.

All this just adds up to very sloppy thinking. That is why it isn’t science.

If this can’t convince him you’re just out of luck. There is no magic bullet to make him change his mind.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@faded_Glory

Behe doesn’t use all of the relevant evidence in his inductive argument. He makes an inference but he fails to construct a model that leads to testable hypotheses. Instead of building a positive case for intelligent design, he makes the negative claim that evolution couldn’t have done it. Fundamentally, he makes an argument from ignorance.

All this just adds up to very sloppy thinking. That is why it isn’t science.

If this can’t convince him you’re just out of luck. There is no magic bullet to make him change his mind.

@swamidass

@faded_Glory has submitted the narrative above for distinguishing between Behe’s conclusions versus yours.

It is the best answer I have seen so far. What do you think ?

Do you think it is missing something? Do you think another participant has done a better job assessing the difference in logic?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

I don’t think it is a difference in logic per se, nor do I think the goal is to change his mind.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@swamidass

I don’t think it is a difference in logic per se…

@swamidass

Then how is it that you and I don’t concur with Behe’s conclusion?

[faded_Glory]

Frankly, I consider neither Dr. Behe’s nor Dr. Swamidass’ conclusions to be scientific. The difference I think is that Dr. Swamidass would agree with that assessment, and Dr. Behe would not.

For clarity, I refer to Dr. Behe’s views on ID and Dr. Swamidass’ views on Genealogical Adam and Eve.