Scientific Dogmatism

[Hegemonicretribution]

This is something I have ended up discussing several times in other places, but I have not devoted a thread to it, and I believe it is worthy of one.

The general approach of the left towards science seems to be largely, and and in my oppinion, unjustly dogmatic in regards to the truth of science. God is wrong because science is right...and science is right because it is proven are two very common attitudes here. I am just asking to question this (I am not implying in anyway that go is a better explanation..it isn't) on two levels: Firstly as Marxists the view of science would roughly follow thus; science is funded by the ruling classes, to their own ends, and is not interested in the furthering of knowledge, rather maintanence, strengthening and reproduction of these classes.

An example of why this isn't held by many of us follows: "Animal testing isn't justified in cases of cosmetic testing, but is in medical testing."

This oppinion I have seen maintained many times before, however it is often neglected taht some of the most aggressive of all corporations are pharmecutical companies. Only a small amount of animal testing, even by them, actual goes on the development of new drugs. Most testing is interesting in rebranding, or creating clone drugs that will prove profitable in western markets. The animals are not being tortured to cure cancer, or beat aids, rather to put money in the tester's pockets when they develope another way of flogging a medicine that has many similar options on the market.


That is my first criticism in the whole basis of faith in science, because that is what it is. Even if it is justified, most of us take it for granted and assume it is proven or acting in our general interests. Too few of us actually question science because the alternatives seem to be religion or lack of a definite answer. My second criticism of our faith in science is based on the fact that proof is something many of us just take for granted.

To fairly study science fairly assume that it is wrong, or at least don't assess it with the prior view that it is right, otherwise you just prove the problem caused by dogma.

Modern science essentially has a general theory that is supported from empirical findings. This is better than perhaps religion which is inherently more dogmatic, but is far from perfect as I shall explain. The problem with induction can be roughly shown through the "white swan" argument. I am sure some of you are familiar with it but I will briefly highlight it anyway.

It was commonly held until relatively recently that all swans were white. This was based on observations; all swans examined in Europe had been white, and this was justification for the idea that all swans were white. However it was found in Australia that there were black swans, the approach can take two turns here. The first is to debunk the theory that all swans are right, because it is evident that this is not the case, the second is to deny that the black bird can be a swan.

The second line of argument is dogmatic itself, essentially this is a tautology, holding white to be synonomus with swans, and anything not white is not a swan. The proposition "all swans are white" essentially becomes as useless as "all bachelors are married" This isn't science, and these statements mean nothing of value.

The first approach, where it is accepted that all swans are no longer white is the one of interest. Forgetting that the black swan has been seen for a moment, how could the initial notion that all swans are white be justified? Observation of one swan, two, a million? Essentially to prove this truly you would have to see every swan, past present and future which is ridiculous, and negates the point of formulating a theory. To disprove the theory only the one black swan was needed.

You may question this relevance to science, but essentially the concept of proof can only apply to when one has experienced every case. It may seem obvious with hindsight that looking in other areas of the world may produce different results as above, but the use of this as a control arises itself only concluded inductively.

In fact almost all scientific reasoning anyone could through at me relies on induction at some point, which as I have demonstrated above isn't really enough for "proof."

Even the point when we have seen enough empirical evidence to justify a theory is itself inductively reasoned. This is based upon when enough evidence has been provided in the past.

Of course everyday life would become impossible if with didn't at least partially rely on induction, and we can only attribute a certain amount of time to questioning it if we ever want to do anything. Essentially just because the computer has never exploded when I turned it on does not mean that it won't next time, but I live with this. It could be concluded that probability is used, and probability is the best science can provide, but even this is poor because probability itself relies on induction and is subjective.

This is a heavily over simplified introduction here, and this is not my entire argument by a long shot, but I believe I have highlighted and raised a few problems that I have never seen addressed before. I will offer more articulated arguments when a decent defense of scientific "proof" or faith in science is offered.

[ComradeRed]

Is it really dogmatic to be a materialist?

Many times I have heard this argument used to justify the existence of "God" or some other crackpot concept, and its base was "It's unscientific to reject anything."

What about scientific materialism? What about realism?

And suppose you were right, what should take its place? What will replace science? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? (http://www.venganza.org/index.htm)

True, engineers are (would be) scientists who have conceded to the demands of the bourgeoisie. Therefore all scientists do? Speak about flawed induction...

Doesn't anybody remember Old Newton's "Rules for Reasoning in Natural Philosophy"? "Admit no unnecessary causes...", call the birds a "White swan" or a "black swan". It doesn't take a physicist to figure it out...

[Amusing Scrotum]

My Scientific knowledge is abysmal, so excuse me if I'm way off the mark, but from what I can gather you are basically saying the left shouldn't be so reliant on science because of who may be funding it?

That is a fair statement, many University Science departments are now funded by corporations and therefore it is not that unreasonable to question their results. Basically it is my opinion that we should treat scientific studies like history sources, contrast compare and look for bias.

I hope I'm not way off the mark here in my attempt to contribute something to a discussion on science, because I suspect I am. :(

[Hegemonicretribution]

Many times I have heard this argument used to justify the existence of "God" or some other crackpot concept, and its base was "It's unscientific to reject anything."
That is a crap justification, look at what you said. At best it could be a justification for not rejecting the possibility of anything. Regardless of what it has been used for it is this line of argument I am looking to disprove, not to have the concept dirtied by poor examples of its presentation (religion) I stated several times religion was not better.


Is it really dogmatic to be a materialist?
I have outlined a line of argument, what do you think?


What about scientific materialism? What about realism?
I was hoping there would be some responses before you, but I was hoping you would respond :). Do we really have to got straight in to (scientific) realism vs anti-realism. I think it would be benificial to talk more generally about the implications and justification of my reasoning. Of course it is probably inevitable that we go down this line of debate, and I am not backing out of this argument.


And suppose you were right, what should take its place? What will replace science?

I never said I knew a better alternative. I said that reliance on induction is a daily necessity. There are good things to be said for science, I am not denying that, and I purposely wrote that post with only a one sided slant to spark discussion.


True, engineers are (would be) scientists who have conceded to the demands of the bourgeoisie. Therefore all scientists do? Speak about flawed induction...
That is totally not what I implied. Economics do apply to science and research as well you know, I think my Marxist criticisms were just. I was not attacking scientists, I do believe that some are righteous in their work, forgetting that is subjective. I do however think it is daft to elevate scientists out of capitalism. They work for a wage, they research what can get funding, and often are obliged to show certain results. Those that don't do not always get publicised. This aspect of criticism was one that exists because of the capitalist society, and I am sure you share my views that communism would be far more benificial to science. Just like capitalism was more benificial to it than feudalism.


Doesn't anybody remember Old Newton's "Rules for Reasoning in Natural Philosophy"? "Admit no unnecessary causes...", call the birds a "White swan" or a "black swan". It doesn't take a physicist to figure it out...
I am not sure what you are trying to say. Could you please make reference to my post? Or offer a general criticism. If you are saying what I think you are saying then you have to realise that what is a necessary cause is also reliant on induction.

[Hegemonicretribution]

I hope I'm not way off the mark here in my attempt to contribute something to a discussion on science, because I suspect I am. :(
You are not way off the mark, and that is one of the reasons the left especially should be critical of all scientific finding.

Do you have any oppinions on induction?

[Amusing Scrotum]

You are not way off the mark, and that is one of the reasons the left especially should be critical of all scientific finding.

Do you have any oppinions on induction?

I'm not to sure what "induction" means in a scientific sense, so I'll use the dictionary definition -


3. Logic.
a. The process of deriving general principles from particular facts or instances.
b. A conclusion reached by this process.

Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=induction)

Now if this is the definition, then I guess you are arguing that the problem with it is that you are never getting your conclusion from a complete body of evidence. Like say if we were to poll opinion on this site and instead of polling every member, we only polled 100 members and accepted the trends present in these 100 members opinions as conclusive.

If I'm sort of on the right lines as to what "induction" is, then I guess my opinion is that we should always view the results of studies that use this method with some suspicion. However I would say that it appears "induction" is the best available method and in this case I guess we must grudgingly accept the results it produces until we see a study that refutes these results.

[ComradeRed]

First let me just say to Armchair Socialism: dictionary.com is not a technical reference!

Science does not equate to "pure induction". If anything it could be thought of as the opposite: inductive deduction. With these circumstances what will happen? If I change this variable what will happen?

Induction on its own is pure statistics.


Regardless of what it has been used for it is this line of argument I am looking to disprove... That is really all that science is: explaining phenomenon, then disproving the explanation to give another such that more phenomenon can be explained.

Science has never claimed to have proven a thing, only to have disproven a large collection of things.


My second criticism of our faith in science is based on the fact that proof is something many of us just take for granted. And the solution is to...disregard proof?

The swan argument is a good criticism of induction alone. As I pointed out, science does not deal with induction alone; it deals with sorting through thousands, sometimes millions, of variables. The method it uses to expose natural laws is through induction (by watching) and deduction (by changing a single variable and comparing the changes).

The swan story does not deal with this; it completely ignores it. Rather than say "In Europe there are white swans, in Australia (or wherever) there are black swans" as a "natural" law, then proceed to explain why (survival and whatnot), what occurs is simply nonsense. Because a black swan exists, we can never know anything about swans? Which can then be extrapulated into never knowing anything?

No scientist uses induction alone, they use a combination (http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/rules.htm) of deduction and induction, as outlined by Newton. The only use of the word "induction" is when speaking against a priori. Out of curiousity, what do you suggest as a replacement of induction?

If a tool doesn't work, you need a replacement...especially in science. However, I don't believe that science is in any trouble; there is no formula that scientists strictly use to figure things out.

[Amusing Scrotum]

First let me just say to Armchair Socialism: dictionary.com is not a technical reference!

Okay calm down.

I had no idea what Hegemonicretribution meant by the term "induction" and therefore used Dictionary.com to see what was the most likely meaning of the word in this context.

Was the definition I picked along the right lines?

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 12:29 AM







Science does not equate to "pure induction". If anything it could be thought of as the opposite: inductive deduction. With these circumstances what will happen? If I change this variable what will happen?
Essentially still induction because it relies upon it.


Induction on its own is pure statistics.
Not very good ones at that.


That is really all that science is: explaining phenomenon, then disproving the explanation to give another such that more phenomenon can be explained.
Hypothetico-deductive method and others are valid points, but are essentially still linked to the promblem of induction. You have highlighted one specific approach, but again this can be called back to induction.


Science has never claimed to have proven a thing, only to have disproven a large collection of things.
I don't know if you are a fan of Popper, but it seems you are, and I myself like him. However when I was refering to proof it was rather a call to those that have faith in science, rather than scientists. I would be impressed to see a denial of faith in science from at least the members here. The general assumption is religion is wrong and science is right because science has proof. Again I am scientific rather than religious, but I am focssing on an (unless someone shws otherwise) unjustified trend.


And the solution is to...disregard proof?
I don't think that this is a fair criticism. Existence may seem absurd without proof, but it may well be correct that proof is an impossible situation. I have never seen absolute proof or even true a-priori knowledge, however I accept this may not be a reasonable concept at all. Why can't these terms be abstract, and nothing more? I am not trying to branch to far into absurdism here, however I am interested in some justification of why knwledge or proof must be possible.


As I pointed out, science does not deal with induction alone; it deals with sorting through thousands, sometimes millions, of variables.

The variables are dependant on induction as is pretty much all reasoning. If you can provide an exaple of a-priori that is not also a tautology I would concede this.

A process thatuses both induction and deduction is essentially inductive.


Because a black swan exists, we can never know anything about swans? Which can then be extrapulated into never knowing anything?
My aim was not to go down the line of global scepticism, however I have never seen a reasonable defunk of this. Why are you so reliant on the concept of knowledge existing? Of course it seems absurd to not accept knowledge, but this is only from within the idea that knowledge does exist.


Out of curiousity, what do you suggest as a replacement of induction?
I do not offer an alternative, but lack of an alternative is not justification for complete faith in a flawed discipline. As I have said, I, like everyone else, rely upon induction in everything I do.


If a tool doesn't work, you need a replacement...especially in science. However, I don't believe that science is in any trouble; there is no formula that scientists strictly use to figure things out.

I appreciate science as a tool, I appreciate Lakatosh, Kuhn and Popper. Kuhn I think offers the best explanation of science however, when he talks about scientific revolutions. Science will have a place, I never denied this. Essentially it seems to work, and I am suprised you haven't mentioned this so far.

I am adopting this line of argument mostly as an exercise in the formulation of my philosophy. It is an argument that is very hard to refute other than in the sense that acceptance of it, is denial of all we "know". It is ridiculous, but very strong and appealing. This is an easy position to adopt, but both easy to attack and defend.

[redstar2000]

What we refer to as "science" does indeed take place within the constraints of class society...specifically capitalism.

Scientists are humans...and can be bought.

And it does happen.

A Glimpse into the Godracket (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1114361146&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

I have discussed the question of "faith" in science in previous threads...

How "True" is Science? (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083628448&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Science & Anti-Science (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083415054&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

I think it is unfortunate that many leftists do not yet grasp the fundamental characteristics of a scientific outlook on reality. It is, after all, at the very base of rational discussion.

We do not, if we are rational, accept anything as "true" simply because someone has said it was true -- no matter how prestigious this speaker might be or how gravely authoritative their tones.

We demand empirical evidence and logical argument in support of their statement.

We proceed on the premise that reality is knowable and that investigating it will yield true answers.

Of course, our present knowledge of reality is still very primitive...there are tons of things that we have only begun to learn about.

But we know far more now than any generation of humans who have ever lived...and we know that our children will know far more than we do and our grandchildren will know even more.

We have chosen "the path of science"...because it can actually lead to a better world.

From our own modest advancement on that path, we can already see that all "other paths to knowledge" are shit!

Case closed! :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Hegemonicretribution]

Redstar, I think we fundamentally agree on the problems with faith in science in a class orientated society, that was really a secondary criticism, and a more basic one.

The reason I put this thread in philosophy not theory was because I was questioning faith or belief in science in any case possible. Do you think that science which (to some extent even now) relies upon induction can ever justify full faith in it? Can it ever constitute knowledge?

I agreed with both you and Commiered that it is the best available that we have seen, and has allowed us advance. Essentially I am questioning whether or not this is can ever create absolute knowledge, like many people just assume it can. A large portion of the membership assume that science is right because it is proven, but can this proof ever be definite?

[Nietzsche]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 03:45 PM
The general approach of the left towards science seems to be largely, and and in my oppinion, unjustly dogmatic in regards to the truth of science. God is wrong because science is right...and science is right because it is proven are two very common attitudes here. I am just asking to question this (I am not implying in anyway that go is a better explanation..it isn't) on two levels: Firstly as Marxists the view of science would roughly follow thus; science is funded by the ruling classes, to their own ends, and is not interested in the furthering of knowledge, rather maintanence, strengthening and reproduction of these classes.

An example of why this isn't held by many of us follows: "Animal testing isn't justified in cases of cosmetic testing, but is in medical testing."
Good questions!
First of all: Good science gives you one single answer, no matter who does it. That's the definition of science. It may be true that it is possible to cheat some with bad science, it is even possible to cheat all for a short period of time, but it is practically impossible to cheat everyone over the long term. There is only one reality and the job of science is to find out its identity. Who does it doesn't matter. If you differ here that's religion (in the widest sense of the word), not science.

Second:
I hold that it is completely okay to to animal testing for any purpose. Why only limit it to bare survival. Isn't a happy life the goal, and not mere survival?
Having rights is something distinctly human. I know that this may sound like religious hogwash, so let me explain this a little bit:
The very concept of right stems from the idea that you have some degree of choice over how you live your life. You can choose a profession, a place where you live, a philosophy of life or a religion. Animals can't. They live their life within tight constrains. They don't have a degree of choice like humans do. They eat, sleep, fuck and die, to say it clearly. :D
If animals had rights, what would you do with predatory animals? Do you put a lion into prison for killing a zebra? No, you don't. Do you put a bird into prison for killing a worm? No, you don't. Why? Because animals are not part of our legal structure, which was built to enable humans to live among humans more peacefully and to maximise their freedom (I know that this is currently not the case, but it was the initial intention).

[Nietzsche]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 03:45 PM
My second criticism of our faith in science is based on the fact that proof is something many of us just take for granted.

To fairly study science fairly assume that it is wrong, or at least don't assess it with the prior view that it is right, otherwise you just prove the problem caused by dogma.

Modern science essentially has a general theory that is supported from empirical findings. This is better than perhaps religion which is inherently more dogmatic, but is far from perfect as I shall explain. The problem with induction can be roughly shown through the "white swan" argument. I am sure some of you are familiar with it but I will briefly highlight it anyway.

...

In fact almost all scientific reasoning anyone could through at me relies on induction at some point, which as I have demonstrated above isn't really enough for "proof."

Even the point when we have seen enough empirical evidence to justify a theory is itself inductively reasoned. This is based upon when enough evidence has been provided in the past.

Of course everyday life would become impossible if with didn't at least partially rely on induction, and we can only attribute a certain amount of time to questioning it if we ever want to do anything. Essentially just because the computer has never exploded when I turned it on does not mean that it won't next time, but I live with this. It could be concluded that probability is used, and probability is the best science can provide, but even this is poor because probability itself relies on induction and is subjective.

This is a heavily over simplified introduction here, and this is not my entire argument by a long shot, but I believe I have highlighted and raised a few problems that I have never seen addressed before. I will offer more articulated arguments when a decent defense of scientific "proof" or faith in science is offered.
Here you claim that induction is not a reliable way of gaining knowledge. This argument goes back to David Hume. He said that all we know is the past. We can make up theories about the past, but not about the future. The future is not to be known. And: All induction has the weakness that you cannot see a causal link. This is just made up, i.e. subjective. Therefore there is no way to know reality.

The first objection I have is: How do you know that and how come you are so certain here all of a sudden? If all knowledge is unsure, then you can' be sure that all knowledge is unsure and every thought becomes worthless.

But now let's see how induction can lead to objective truth:
First of all, the swan example, even though it is well-known in current philosophy, is nonsense. The idea is: I saw some swans, they were white, therefore all swans are white. And then:Oops I missed the black one, this damned induction thing is worthless.
The problem is:That all swans are white is not an inductive truth in the first place.
What you need to identify in induction is a causal link, a reason why swans are white. Everything else is just arbitrary assumption. If you knew the genes of a swan and then said, every swan is white because of this gene, then you would have found an inductive truth. And if you found out that there was a swan that was black, you would also find that it has different genes.
Saying that all swans are white is like saying: all black people are stupid. It's nonsense. No matter how many stupid black people one may have met, it proves nothing. It's not true.
Wild assumptions are not practical. They may seem to be, but it is dangerous to base your life on something you can't prove. It could turn out that it is wrong. Unless you find both empirical and theoretical reasons for something, you cannot claim that it's true. All you have is a prejudice, and yes, that's clearly subjective.
Finding truth is the hardest thing you can do. You can't just read a book, feel smart then, and that's about it. It requires hard work. You always have to attack your most cherished beliefs. But what else can you do? You don't want to live your life based on a lie. At least I don't. :P :D

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 03:59 PM
Redstar, I think we fundamentally agree on the problems with faith in science in a class orientated society, that was really a secondary criticism, and a more basic one.

The reason I put this thread in philosophy not theory was because I was questioning faith or belief in science in any case possible. Do you think that science which (to some extent even now) relies upon induction can ever justify full faith in it? Can it ever constitute knowledge?

I agreed with both you and Commiered that it is the best available that we have seen, and has allowed us advance. Essentially I am questioning whether or not this is can ever create absolute knowledge, like many people just assume it can. A large portion of the membership assume that science is right because it is proven, but can this proof ever be definite?
Does it really matter whether or not science offers us "absolute truth"?

What we can judge from our own experience of three centuries of science is that the scientific method yields pragmatic truths with a very high degree of reliability.

Moreover, there's no evidence that any other method "works better" than science.

I wouldn't absolutely rule out the possibility that there might be discovered, "someday", one or more methods that "work even better" -- though I can't even begin to imagine what they might be or how they might work.

I question the "importance" of "absolute truth" in a period in which so many pragmatic truths have yet to be discovered.

Perhaps five or ten centuries into the future, when we actually have a thriving communist society and a collection of "pragmatic truths" far in advance over what we have now...then we might re-examine the question of "absolute truth" more usefully.

But for now, I think we need more and better science.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Hegemonicretribution]

Here you claim that induction is not a reliable way of gaining knowledge. This argument goes back to David Hume.
This is only one aspect of the argument, there is also instrumentalism and global scepticism, although Hume is often a link between areas of thought.


The first objection I have is: How do you know that and how come you are so certain here all of a sudden? If all knowledge is unsure, then you can' be sure that all knowledge is unsure and every thought becomes worthless.
First of all you accept that you are working in abstracts when you assume a position such as this. Whilst you may claim that knowledge is impossible, you must accept that if you are going to carry out an action (which includes non-action) then this is based upon something. Essentially you cannot know all knowledge is impossible, as this misses the point. I am not trying to argue this as an application, but more in terms of a philosophical posityion that is hard to counter, because essentially it doesn't really claim anything.


If you knew the genes of a swan and then said, every swan is white because of this gene, then you would have found an inductive truth.
Claiming that the gene is the causal link relies also on inductive inferencfe itself. Why is it O.K. not to claim swans are white based on observations, which essentially can not be known until every case has been examined, but is O.K. to claim a causal link when not every case has been examined. Essentially induction applies at this level also.


What you need to identify in induction is a causal link, a reason why swans are white. Everything else is just arbitrary assumption.
Gravity applies here also: the idea that there is attraction between masses that varies based on the mass and distance (in a vacuum) is similar to the white swan example. I am trying to to go down the causality route of argument, because I don't think induction itself has been answered yet.


But what else can you do? You don't want to live your life based on a lie. At least I don't.
Yes, and this is why I am sceptical about indction as a whole.

Essentially if it is possible for knowledge ( I am not claiming it is impossible, or that I know one way or the other) then could someone give an example of knowledge, something that I could not throw serious doubt upon? I have never seen anything fundamentally true or indubitable. This is why I bring this up because of claims (unsubstanciated) that have been made otherwise.

[Nietzsche]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 02:26 PM
First of all you accept that you are working in abstracts when you assume a position such as this. Whilst you may claim that knowledge is impossible, you must accept that if you are going to carry out an action (which includes non-action) then this is based upon something. Essentially you cannot know all knowledge is impossible, as this misses the point. I am not trying to argue this as an application, but more in terms of a philosophical posityion that is hard to counter, because essentially it doesn't really claim anything.

I have read this paragraph several times, but I don't understand what it is you wanted to say. Please rephrase, so it can finally enter my mind. Thanks. :)

[Nietzsche]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 02:26 PM
Claiming that the gene is the causal link relies also on inductive inferencfe itself. Why is it O.K. not to claim swans are white based on observations, which essentially can not be known until every case has been examined, but is O.K. to claim a causal link when not every case has been examined. Essentially induction applies at this level also.

Okay, I forgot to mention something.
Your argument is that this still relies on a 'belief' in genetics. Which is a good argument, only it's not belief, but knowledge. Now where is the difference, you may ask.
If you are able to go down the chain far enough, (from swans to genetics to biology to chemistry down to basic experiments where you can actually see what's happening), you end up basing your knowledge on direct sensory perception.
That's what induction does. It takes something new and finds out its nature. You want to know why swans are white. And you go down the entire chain until it becomes obvious that they have to be.
At some point it's like saying blue is blue. 2+2 is 4. And then Swans are white because of that gene. All mathematics is nothing but tautologies. And so is physics once you understand that everything that is has to be something, that is something specific with certain properties. And you find out these properties by your senses. And that's where the story ends.

This all is based on the idea that what your senses tell you is true. Now you may ask how I can make such a wild claim. But it is no wild claim. How do you find out when your senses fool you? By relying on other sensory data. All you have is sensory data. It is the basis of all knowledge. You cannot say that sensory data is invalid because it would deny your ability to make that very statement. It is self-contradictory just like the statement 'You cannot have certain knowledge.'.
So your senses have to be trusted. They are your only means of knowing the world. But they alone are not enough. You also need reason. Reason, then, is a means of cognition. To understand why light changes its course when entering water after having been in air before, you look at the pencil in a glass of water. You see that it is bent, but if you take it out it isn't. If you feel it, it isn't. Therefore it isn't. So something must 'fool you' when you look at the pencil half in water. That's how you find out about properties of light by sensory data. Your senses didn't fool you. Instead, they tell you that light bends when entering/leaving water.
You don't need to look at every instance to make an inductive claim. Once you nailed it down to basic tautologies, your claim is proven. Period.

The reason why this is so hard when dealing with swans is because swans are very complicated things. There are many things you just don't see during examination and you make errors. That's why you try to isolate things and eliminate variables as much as you can in every physics experiment. You do it to make sure that your observation and induction is reliable. Given the requirements of accepted truth in physics you can be sure that it's nailed down to mere observational self-evidencies. If you repeat an experiment again and again and again and again and you don't observe complicated matter but make it as simple as you possibly can and you always get the same answer, and if this is verified by countless experiments made by lots of researchers, then you can be sure.

As I said, finding truth is the hardest thing you can do.

If you look for dogmatism, don't look for it in science. :)
Try religion, politics and philosophy instead.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Okay, I forgot to mention something.
Your argument is that this still relies on a 'belief' in genetics. Which is a good argument, only it's not belief, but knowledge.
This is what I was looking for, because I would argue this can't be know...but we shall see.


Now where is the difference, you may ask.
If you are able to go down the chain far enough, (from swans to genetics to biology to chemistry down to basic experiments where you can actually see what's happening), you end up basing your knowledge on direct sensory perception.
At atomic level, but especially sub-atomic level you do not, for these things cannot be percieved.

Also just because you have sense data, it does not free it from the original problem, no amount of observation will justify a causal link, it is taking a step further, but it still relies on induction. The dogamatism comes in because the justification for induction is itself inductively inferred.

I also take it that you are empiricist then, and also realist perhaps?


That's what induction does. It takes something new and finds out its nature. You want to know why swans are white. And you go down the entire chain until it becomes obvious that they have to be.

At what level is this? Why do they have to be? Because of the inductively inferred causal link? This is por reasoning in my opinion, stating there just must be a reason. Obviously reliant on foundational beliefs.


nothing but tautologies. And so is physics once you understand that everything that is has to be something, that is something specific with certain properties. And you find out these properties by your senses. And that's where the story ends.
If it is tautological then it is inherently dogmatic. What s the justification for your original claim, are you saying that sense data is foundational knowledge?


Now you may ask how I can make such a wild claim. But it is no wild claim. How do you find out when your senses fool you? By relying on other sensory data. All you have is sensory data. It is the basis of all knowledge. You cannot say that sensory data is invalid because it would deny your ability to make that very statement.
It is self-contradictory just like the statement 'You cannot have certain knowledge.'.
Sensory data doesn't make the statement invalid the concept of knowledge itself does. Even then as I have explained, claiming a lack of knowledge is not expressing knowledge. Rather a rejection of the concept as absolute, stationary or definite gives new meanings to the words and it s only in this context which it can be understood. The statement does not mean much from a perspective reliant on dogma, or definite concepts. Linguistics do simply not suffice heere, and I would be very abstract trying to word how I see this.

Why is all you have sensory data? The mind knows nothing but sense data? What would your view be on Descarte's wax for example?


So your senses have to be trusted. They are your only means of knowing the world. But they alone are not enough. You also need reason. Reason, then, is a means of cognition. To understand why light changes its course when entering water after having been in air before, you look at the pencil in a glass of water. You see that it is bent, but if you take it out it isn't. If you feel it, it isn't. Therefore it isn't. So something must 'fool you' when you look at the pencil half in water. That's how you find out about properties of light by sensory data. Your senses didn't fool you. Instead, they tell you that light bends when entering/leaving water.
You don't need to look at every instance to make an inductive claim. Once you nailed it down to basic tautologies, your claim is proven. Period.
I do not accept that you must accept as true, something purely based on the poorness of alternatives, that is very poor reasoning. Acting on the best solution is logical, however assuming it is fundamentally true because of this is not.

Of course when you reduce something to a tautology it is proven, that is because it is self containing, it essentially says or does nothing.


If you repeat an experiment again and again and again and again and you don't observe complicated matter but make it as simple as you possibly can and you always get the same answer, and if this is verified by countless experiments made by lots of researchers, then you can be sure.
This will require some time to respond to and I just realised you are restricted and unable to respond, I will see if you are able to or not before I spend time answering.

Thanks for taking the time though :)