Experience
and
Inference
Joan Hughes' Summary and Review of
Human Knowledge
By Bertrand Russell (1948)
This book is divided into 6 parts:-
1. The World of Science
2. Language
3. Science and Perception
4. Scientific Concepts
5. Probability
6. Postulates of Scientific Inference.
According to Russell, human knowledge is gained from two sources; what we
experience, and what we infer. Inferences are often made using
induction. Russell has commonly
been thought of as an uncritical advocate of scientific induction, but this
is far
from the case. Russell believes that induction leads as often to false
conclusions as to true ones. (p.329-330). But we can make inductions
about what is likely to be true, such as the generalization that
"dogs
bark." In order to do this we use
postulates
which we have formed in the
gradual process of adapting to our environment (p.526).
In Part 1, Russell distinguishes individual knowledge from public
knowledge, and briefly describes sciences which he believes have a strong
theoretical basis, ie. astronomy, physics, biological evolution, physiology
and psychology.
In the chapter on physiology, Russell accepts a mechanistic view of human
behaviour, sometimes known as the Stimulus-Response (S-R) model.
(p.67).
In Part 2, Russell discusses how we gain knowledge by means of language. He
often refers to Hume, the philosopher, so that readers who have no previous
knowledge of Hume may find that a preliminary reading of Andrew Robert's
"What is Science?" essay
helpful. Even then, there are
difficulties. Russell uses a few words like intension and compresent which
are not defined in the sense in which he uses them in a small dictionary.
A child first learns about things without the use of language. Ostensive
learning is defined as any process by which we learn to understand a word
without the use of other words. This is the way a child learns when shown a
bottle or glass of milk and at the same time the word milk is uttered. The
non-ostensive way of learning comes later when we learn a word like
quadruped as a name for a class of other words.
Russell introduces the concept of minimum vocabulary (p.94). This is one
which contains no word which can be defined in terms of the other words in
it. Later in the book Russell explains how minimum vocabulary is applied to
arithmetic by Peano (p.252). The minimum vocabulary of arithmetic is its
axioms.
In Part 3, Russell distinguishes perceptual space from physical space. When
we see something like a table which exists in physical space, we do not see
the table exactly as it is in physical space. What we see depends on
impulses to our brains along afferent nerves depending upon the effects of
the reflected light from the table on our afferent nerves. All this takes
time, which although very short means we are seeing the effect the table
had on our afferent nerves, possibly a few (unmeasurable) nanoseconds ago.
Two different people always see the table slightly differently even when
standing close together.
What we know about the physical world comes to us from inference or
interpretation of the visual data. We can infer what physical structures
are like which exist in a physical space-time continuum. But what we infer
depends on mental events taking place in our brains.
In Part 4, Russell explains the scientific concepts which make his
conclusions understandable. These include Newton's concept of "Absolute
Time" and Einstein's concept of the "Space-Time Continuum" which
superseded it.
No total momentary experience reoccurs anywhere in space-time. This is an
empiricist view, based on experience.(p.315). Empirical positions are only
probable, not absolutely certain. Russell often alludes to the
impossibility of complete knowledge. He says that it is impossible to know
everything about a "complete complex of compresence." This means that it is
impossible to know everything about an event which is happening to us now.
In Part 5, Russell distinguishes between mathematical probability and
probability in everyday life. In mathematical probability, the odds for or
against an event can be calculated exactly, because all the variables are
known. An example of this would be the probability of drawing two red cards
on the first and second draw from a pack of 52 playing cards. In everyday
life , Bishop Butler advised "Let probability be the guide of life."
This is the second kind of probability, in which odds cannot be calculated.
For example if we decide that Company X appears to give best value for our
insurance contributions, we say "probably this is the best investment", but
it would be impossible to calculate the mathematical probability as in the
first case. There are many variables, some of which may be unknown.
In Part 6, Russell gives his conclusions.
In the chapter called "Summary of Postulates" Russell lists the postulates
necessary to make scientific method possible.
1. Quasi-permanence.
2. Separable causal lines
3. Spatio-temporal continuity in causal lines.
4. Common causal origin of similar structures arranged about a centre.
5. Analogy.
In the last part of his book Russell explains in details the reasons why he
considers these postulates necessary. It is easier to read after having
read the first part of the book. Becoming used to Russell's style is
useful, and also the way he gives many illustrations for difficult
concepts, and explains them several times in different ways.
Quasi-permanence may be illustrated that we consider our kitten which after
14 years is an old cat, but is still the same "thing." Russell considers a
drop of water in the sea, which though in motion remains the same drop. It
is this drop rather than any other drop which is connected by a causal
line.
Common causal origin can be illustrated as follows. If we consider the
group cats, most cats will have whiskers, be carnivores, have four legs and
a tail, have fur. Biologists will be able to add many more attributes. But
cats who possess most of these attributes but not all of them, will still
be considered cats. Manx cats are still cats. Cats are gathered about a
centre in which Manx cats will be slightly off-centre.
Can these postulates be considered "Knowledge"? Russell believes they are
habits of thought. These habits have been formed in order to ensure
biological survival. They are not knowledge in the way that knowledge
based on observation is knowledge. They enable both animal induction and
sophisticated scientific inductions. And enable us not to make absurd
inductions, such as those which can be invented by logicians.
Finally Russell concludes that there is a limit to knowledge which can be
gained in an empirical way, based on experience. "Human knowledge is
uncertain, inexact and partial."(p.527)
Though this book was written in 1948 and some of the language would not be
used to-day, it is in no way out-of-date, and well worth reading.
Deductive Testing
Joan Hughes' Summary and Review of
The Logic of Scientific Discovery
by
Karl Popper (1934)
Popper begins the book by saying that he intends to prove that scientific
induction (proceeding from single observations to generalizations) is
invalid in all cases. Popper uses the rules of classical logic. The theory
which he intends to develop, he calls the deductive method of testing
(p.30).
Popper agrees
with the logical positivists (who he calls positivists) that a
demarcation between science and metaphysics
is
necessary. This is not to
say that Popper thinks metaphysics is useless, as they did; indeed he says
that metaphysical thinking has often inspired science (p.38). Popper
does not define metaphysics
when he first talks about it on p.35. Instead he tells what positivists
think about metaphysics - The nearest he gets to a definition is on p.38 as
"faith in ideas of a purely speculative kind"
"The fact that value judgements influence my proposals does not
mean that I am making the mistake of which I have accused the
positivists - that of trying to kill metaphysics by calling it
names. I do
not even go as far as to assert that metaphysics has no value for empirical
science. For it cannot be denied that along with metaphysical ideas which
have obstructed the advance of science there have been others - such as
speculative atomism - which have aided it. An looking at the matter from
the psychological angle, I am inclined to think that scientific discovery
is impossible without faith in ideas of a purely speculative kind, and
sometimes even quite hazy; a faith which is completely unwarranted from the
point of view of science, and which to that extent is
metaphysical"
What he says is
that metaphysics cannot be included in logical proofs of scientific
theories. Logical proof is work that is done after the initial inspiration
which pointed towards the theory and the practical work needed to test it,
and is far more formal.
Induction is unsatisfactory because it may lead to an infinite regress. (An
infinite regress means that we always have to appeal to a higher principle
of induction to justify "the principle of induction" which we have used to
deduce that the future observations on a set of objects will be the same as
those we have made in the past.) Popper is concerned that systems of
theories should be tested by means that do not lead to an infinite regress.
He favours deductive testing which can only prove that theories are false;
it cannot prove that they are true. Popper does not demand that every
scientific statement should have been tested, but he does demand that every
scientific statement should be capable of being tested.(p.48) The first
few tests may corroborate a theory. But this not proof that eventually a
scientist will not find a test which disproves a theory, once and for all.
Science is always advancing. There are no theories which cannot be
overthrown or improved. We can feel quite comfortable with theories which
may have a long "innings" even if they cannot be infallibly proved true.
Popper often defines rules which he is going to use in his future analysis.
e.g. "I shall adopt a rule not to use undefined concepts as if they were
implicitly defined." (p.75).
The book is quite difficult to understand in places, for most people who
have not studied "classical logic". However Popper does explain those
methods of classical logic which are necessary to understand his argument
e.g "modus tollens" (P.76)
This book has extensive footnotes. I find it best on a first reading to
omit the footnotes, unless there is a very difficult paragraph, which the
footnote may throw light on.
Comparing the book with Russell's "Human Knowledge" I missed the flashes of
humour with which Russell lightens his text. Though the book looks more
difficult than Russell's, because there are fewer descriptive examples, and
more symbols are used, nevertheless Popper does explain some terms much
more clearly than Russell. For example Popper defines the term
"intensional" very clearly (p.167) whereas Russell left this term
undefined, and readers had to infer by his usage what the term meant.
Popper tells us that an "intensionally" defined series is a series defined
by an internal mathematical rule.
Towards the end of the book (p.215-250) there is a section on quantum
theory which may prove difficult for readers unfamiliar with the subject.
It can be omitted. Nevertheless in this section Popper relates his theories
to experimental examples.
I feel most scientists even if they use induction because they are
psychologically happy with it, would agree with Popper's conclusion that
there is no formal proof of induction. One positive test can only
corroborate or support a theory. It cannot prove it. But one negative test
can disprove a theory.
Science, Technology and Engineering
The following definitions from Professional Engineering, Volume
11, No. 14, pp. 24-25 will be found under "Frequently Asked Questions" on
Women's Engineering
Society website. [The website is lost and I have been unable to
find the text in Professional Engineering ISSN: 0953-6639 Vol. 11 Issue 14
- 22.7.1998. The pages (24-25) are not in the electronic version and it amy
be that they are advertising material). [Professional Engineering is the
magazine of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers.]
Sciences: A complex of theory, describing the facts of nature.
Technology: The exploitation of scientific and other knowledge
for production.
Engineer: A creator, bringing together the necessary elements in
planning and managing that creation.
Engineering: The practice of harnessing the properties and
forces of nature to create materials, structures and devices and to ensure
the continued operation of the latter two. There are different branches of
engineering. For example, Mechanical Engineering is 'the innovative
application of science and technology in the design, production and
operation of all mechanical devices, machinery and systems'.