IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 28th May 2013, 08:38 AM   #1
keyfeatures
Critical Thinker
 
keyfeatures's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 436
The problem of induction

Why are black swans called black swans, but tigers are not called stripy lions?

Why don't we decide that all swans are white, and that swan-shaped birds of other colours should be called something else?
keyfeatures is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2013, 09:18 AM   #2
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,841
Originally Posted by keyfeatures View Post
Why are black swans called black swans, but tigers are not called stripy lions?

Why don't we decide that all swans are white, and that swan-shaped birds of other colours should be called something else?
Because the meaning of the word "swan" doesn't include a definition of its colour. It might have done, but it doesn't. The very saying, current in Europe prior to the discovery of Australia, "all swans are white" implies that they might be some other colour without ceasing to qualify as swans.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2013, 09:41 AM   #3
hgc
Penultimate Amazing
 
hgc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 15,892
Originally Posted by keyfeatures View Post
Why are black swans called black swans, but tigers are not called stripy lions?

Why don't we decide that all swans are white, and that swan-shaped birds of other colours should be called something else?

Because... word games is word games, and the problem of induction is something else entirely?
hgc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2013, 10:00 AM   #4
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by keyfeatures View Post
Why are black swans called black swans, but tigers are not called stripy lions?

Why don't we decide that all swans are white, and that swan-shaped birds of other colours should be called something else?
We do, we call it a black swan.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2013, 01:06 PM   #5
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by keyfeatures View Post
Why are black swans called black swans, but tigers are not called stripy lions?

Why don't we decide that all swans are white, and that swan-shaped birds of other colours should be called something else?
In some cases, we do.

The issue is that taxonomy is extremely difficult. It requires an in-depth knowledge of numerous groups of organisms, to the point where you known what traits are important for each individual group (remembering that groups can be subgroups of other groups--it's a nested heirarchy). In swans, color isn't a significant variation--meaning that it's not sufficient to differentiate between species. In other groups, it might be.

Then there's the issue of farming. Biologically there's no difference between a kid and a goat, or a calf and a heffer and a cow outside of ontogeny. But if you try to sell me a cow when I ask for a calf I'm going to be very upset with you.

Nothing to do with induction, though. This is an issue of semantics and communication, not logic.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2013, 03:04 PM   #6
Brian-M
Daydreamer
 
Brian-M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,044
Originally Posted by keyfeatures View Post
Why are black swans called black swans, but tigers are not called stripy lions?

Why don't we decide that all swans are white, and that swan-shaped birds of other colours should be called something else?

We refer to black swans by their color because white swans are far more common. When people hear the word "swan", they tend to picture the white variety. Specifying that the swan is black helps correct a possible misunderstanding. If you lived in an area where swans were predominantly black, you'd probably use the phrase "white swan" to refer to other kinds of swan.

We don't call tigers stripy lions because lions are not tigers. They're different species. It's not just fur pattern that sets them apart.
__________________
"That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim
Brian-M is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2013, 08:41 PM   #7
annnnoid
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,703
Originally Posted by keyfeatures View Post
Why are black swans called black swans, but tigers are not called stripy lions?

Why don't we decide that all swans are white, and that swan-shaped birds of other colours should be called something else?

Which 'we' are you referring to? Amidst the murk of meaning...much can be made of nothing. Where lies the final arbiter? Perhaps 'we' need to establish a global court of naming...where all conflicts, contradictions, inconsistencies, and disputes can be reviewed. Doubtless the lawyers so engaged will enjoy a profitable life.

Methinks the occurrence of black swans is ultimately attributable to the tower of Babel. Thus...God done it (though, to be fair, God must eventually acknowledge universal culpability).
annnnoid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2013, 08:57 PM   #8
ravdin
Illuminator
 
ravdin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,985
David Foster Wallace had a story about the problem of induction, which I'll paraphrase. As a kid he spent his summers on a farm and his favorite chicken was called "Mr. Chicken". Every day a man would appear with a bag of feed and upon seeing him Mr. Chicken would start pecking at the ground in anticipation. Then one day the man showed up with an empty bag. Mr. Chicken started the routine of warm up pecks but was abruptly yanked out of the pen to have its neck broken and was then placed in the sack.

Induction is pretty damn useful, but it does have its downsides sometimes.
__________________
Take the risk of thinking for yourself. Much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way. -Christopher Hitchens

Believe what you're told. There would be chaos if everyone thought for themselves. -Top Dog slogan
ravdin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2013, 09:05 PM   #9
hgc
Penultimate Amazing
 
hgc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 15,892
Originally Posted by Brian-M View Post
We refer to black swans by their color because white swans are far more common. When people hear the word "swan", they tend to picture the white variety. Specifying that the swan is black helps correct a possible misunderstanding. If you lived in an area where swans were predominantly black, you'd probably use the phrase "white swan" to refer to other kinds of swan.

We call the Black Swan (Cygnus atratus) by that name because that the common name of that particular species of swan throughout the English-speaking world. Yes, they happen to be black in color, and uniquely so, and that's also likely how they got the name. But strictly speaking, we call them Black Swans because that's what they're called, not because they're black. And that's what they're called in Australia too. There's no species known as a White Swan.

But more importantly, why is the Black Swan a common topic of conversation these days? Because Nassim Nicholas Taleb has popularized the Black Swan concept in his books over the last 10 years, to illustrate how we live in a reality where unpredictable events can and do have profound impacts.

If you get hung up with word games, you will have missed the point. This is about Uncertainty.
hgc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2013, 10:32 AM   #10
keyfeatures
Critical Thinker
 
keyfeatures's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 436
Is it fair to assume that all swans have very long necks? How accurate is this assumption when faced with a goose? Or should we assume that all zebras are stripy when faced with a donkey - or even a zorse?

I don't think the fact that some black swan-shaped birds are called black swans proves the unexpected can happen. It does, however, highlight the erratic nature of nomenclature.
keyfeatures is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2013, 10:39 AM   #11
keyfeatures
Critical Thinker
 
keyfeatures's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 436
As for the Mr Chicken story, I'm not convinced that highlights the problem of induction either. Rather it shows the limits of observation. In the example, Mr Chicken was unable to observe that the conditions were not the same, and therefore realise that a different result might occur.

For my money, induction refers to the assumption that the exact same conditions will lead to the exact same outcome. Having a variable (hidden or otherwise) in the mix is not a problem with induction but a problem with incorrect or limited observation.
keyfeatures is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2013, 10:45 AM   #12
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by keyfeatures View Post
As for the Mr Chicken story, I'm not convinced that highlights the problem of induction either. Rather it shows the limits of observation. In the example, Mr Chicken was unable to observe that the conditions were not the same, and therefore realise that a different result might occur.

For my money, induction refers to the assumption that the exact same conditions will lead to the exact same outcome. Having a variable (hidden or otherwise) in the mix is not a problem with induction but a problem with incorrect or limited observation.
Mr. Chicken might have noticed what happened to other chickens.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2013, 11:12 AM   #13
bjornart
Master Poster
 
bjornart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,568
Originally Posted by keyfeatures View Post
Why are black swans called black swans, but tigers are not called stripy lions?

Why don't we decide that all swans are white, and that swan-shaped birds of other colours should be called something else?
Because that's how language works. English speaking people, who are the only ones these specific questions relate to, learned about lions and tigers and received words for them, along paths that gave distinct words for the different species. When at a much later date English speaking people encountered birds related to and very similar to the exclusively white swan family they naturally considered them a new kind of swan, a black one.

Some English speaking people did something similar when encountering a big cat in the Americas, but mountain lion was apparently coined much later than the borrowing of several of the words already used for the big cats.

And as has been mentioned before, the problem of induction is a philosophical question that isn't dependent on the language used to express it, or nitpicky flaws in oft used simplifying examples.
__________________
Well, I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU LIKE TO BELIEVE, GODDAMMIT! I DEAL IN THE FACTS!
-Cecil Adams
bjornart is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2013, 11:25 AM   #14
Bill Thompson 75
Graduate Poster
 
Bill Thompson 75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,437
Originally Posted by keyfeatures View Post
As for the Mr Chicken story, I'm not convinced that highlights the problem of induction either. Rather it shows the limits of observation. In the example, Mr Chicken was unable to observe that the conditions were not the same, and therefore realise that a different result might occur.

For my money, induction refers to the assumption that the exact same conditions will lead to the exact same outcome. Having a variable (hidden or otherwise) in the mix is not a problem with induction but a problem with incorrect or limited observation.
Has anyone ever heard of that description of induction before?
Bill Thompson 75 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2013, 11:32 AM   #15
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 25,863
I think a better understanding of the problem of induction could be had by exploring the differences between the Black Rhino and the White Rhino. So long as a nice bottle of wine were included in the discussion, of course.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2013, 11:36 AM   #16
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by Wiki
Inductive reasoning, also known as induction or informally "bottom-up" logic,[1] is a kind of reasoning that constructs or evaluates general propositions that are derived from specific examples.
It does, in fact, rest on the assumption that the same outcome is the result of the same conditions. If a different outcome occurs, in practice the assumption is that some change in the conditions caused it. If you can't make that assumption, the whole concept breaks down--if the same conditions lead to different outcomes it's not possible to derive general principles from specific observations.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2013, 11:38 AM   #17
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
I think a better understanding of the problem of induction could be had by exploring the differences between the Black Rhino and the White Rhino. So long as a nice bottle of wine were included in the discussion, of course.
There's a reason scientists drink.

And really, the problem with induction isn't a problem in practice. No one uses purely inductive reasoning. Induction provides us with generalized concepts, which we use to make deduced predictions. Then we see if observations match our predictions. The combination of induction and deduction we use naturally (and more formally as the scientific method) neatly negates the problem with induction. This method has its own problems, but that's another conversation.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2013, 11:55 AM   #18
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,804
No-one has commented on the ridiculous notion that a tiger is a stripy lion. Why are we focusing on swans, when the bigger semantic cock-up was in the other half of the OP?
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2013, 11:56 AM   #19
keyfeatures
Critical Thinker
 
keyfeatures's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 436
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
There's a reason scientists drink.

And really, the problem with induction isn't a problem in practice.
Agreed. However, I'm having a problem seeing what the problem is supposed to be, giving that all the examples are really a failure of observation, not a problem with induction.
keyfeatures is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2013, 11:57 AM   #20
keyfeatures
Critical Thinker
 
keyfeatures's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 436
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
No-one has commented on the ridiculous notion that a tiger is a stripy lion. Why are we focusing on swans, when the bigger semantic cock-up was in the other half of the OP?
Why is that so ridiculous, given that lions and tigers can interbreed? They obviously get a bit confused themselves sometimes.

(And a black swan is as likely to breed with a Canada goose as a white swan - they obviously have a different idea of taxonomy to humans)

Last edited by keyfeatures; 29th May 2013 at 12:01 PM.
keyfeatures is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2013, 12:09 PM   #21
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by keyfeatures View Post
Agreed. However, I'm having a problem seeing what the problem is supposed to be, giving that all the examples are really a failure of observation, not a problem with induction.
Well, that right there is the problem. Induction is GIGO--garbage in, garbage out. You're not drawing conclusions based on the system, but rather on a subset of the system labeled "Observations". To do otherwise is logically impossible (how do you interpret things you can't observe?), but it does place limits on what you can do with induction alone.

Originally Posted by MikeG
Why are we focusing on swans, when the bigger semantic cock-up was in the other half of the OP?
In my case, it's because the swan issue actually addresses some serious issues in taxonomy, while the cat issue is one that any study of anatomy, physiology, or....well, biology in general will answer quite simply. We don't call tigers strippy lions because there are numerous other traits by which the two groups differ; it's trivially false. There's only one trait different between black and white swans, but since some species are separated by only one trait this is non-trivially false and calls into question the entire morphospecies concept.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2013, 12:33 PM   #22
Dani
Master Poster
 
Dani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sometimes
Posts: 2,240
I became aware of the "problem of induction" reading Karl Popper. After some thought, I realized that his "problem" was logical positivism rather than induction.

Maybe he draw wrong general conclusions about induction from the specific views of logical positivists.
Dani is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2013, 12:36 PM   #23
keyfeatures
Critical Thinker
 
keyfeatures's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 436
It could be deduced that;

All swans are white
The birds observed are black
Therefore, the birds are not swans
keyfeatures is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2013, 12:41 PM   #24
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by keyfeatures
It could be deduced that;

All swans are white
The birds observed are black
Therefore, the birds are not swans
Possibly. However, you're running into an entirely different issue here: the definition of "swan", which is assumed in the opening statement. Short version is, there are some traits that are diagnostic of the taxa, and some that are not. It really does take an expert to determine which are which (and even there, it's tricky). If color is a diagnostic trait, then your logic works. If it's not, it's akin to saying "All humans have blond hair. You have red hair. You are therefore not human." (Yes, I know it's inflamitory--I'm merely trying to pick the most absurd example I can think of, to clearly illustrate the point; I'm not calling you a Nazi or racist or anything.)

For the long version, start with Linnaeus and work your way forward.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2013, 01:02 PM   #25
Dani
Master Poster
 
Dani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sometimes
Posts: 2,240
Originally Posted by keyfeatures View Post
It could be deduced that;

All swans are white
The birds observed are black
Therefore, the birds are not swans
Yeah, but then "all swans are white" is no longer inductively arrived at. It's just a definition, something that would be tautologically true.
Dani is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2013, 01:06 PM   #26
keyfeatures
Critical Thinker
 
keyfeatures's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 436
Drawing the borders around a species is certainly tricky
keyfeatures is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2013, 01:19 PM   #27
hgc
Penultimate Amazing
 
hgc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 15,892
Originally Posted by keyfeatures View Post
Agreed. However, I'm having a problem seeing what the problem is supposed to be, giving that all the examples are really a failure of observation, not a problem with induction.

The problem that the OP may be trying to get at, though ineptly, is that if you make an assumption of knowledge about a category of things when your observations haven't taken in the entire population of occurrences, then your conclusion is susceptible to failure.

The "black swan" is an easy to understand case, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with what words we use to label things. There was a time when everyone (European men of learning) thought there was likely no such thing as a black swan because no one had ever seen one (and reported it). As a matter of fact, "black swan" was a sort of byword for this idea going back to Roman times.

When Europeans arrived in Australia, the knowledge of non-existence of black swans turned out to be incorrect. Inductive reasoning failed in that case. It's the problem of induction.

Last edited by hgc; 29th May 2013 at 01:20 PM.
hgc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2013, 01:19 PM   #28
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Lumpers vs. splitters; what can you do?
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2013, 01:36 PM   #29
keyfeatures
Critical Thinker
 
keyfeatures's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 436
Originally Posted by Dani View Post
Yeah, but then "all swans are white" is no longer inductively arrived at. It's just a definition, something that would be tautologically true.
Absolutely. How was the decision that black swans are swans arrived at?
keyfeatures is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2013, 01:39 PM   #30
keyfeatures
Critical Thinker
 
keyfeatures's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 436
Originally Posted by hgc View Post
The problem that the OP may be trying to get at, though ineptly, is that if you make an assumption of knowledge about a category of things when your observations haven't taken in the entire population of occurrences, then your conclusion is susceptible to failure.

The "black swan" is an easy to understand case, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with what words we use to label things. There was a time when everyone (European men of learning) thought there was likely no such thing as a black swan because no one had ever seen one (and reported it). As a matter of fact, "black swan" was a sort of byword for this idea going back to Roman times.

When Europeans arrived in Australia, the knowledge of non-existence of black swans turned out to be incorrect. Inductive reasoning failed in that case. It's the problem of induction.
Okay, so is it fair to assume all swans have long necks? Or all swans have two wings? And if so, why?
keyfeatures is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2013, 01:41 PM   #31
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by keyfeatures View Post
Absolutely. How was the decision that black swans are swans arrived at?
Almost certainly anotomically.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2013, 02:05 PM   #32
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,841
Originally Posted by keyfeatures View Post
Absolutely. How was the decision that black swans are swans arrived at?
A paper cut out set on a black background, or a projected dark shadow of a swan, would have been unmistakable as a swan even to a seventeenth century resident of the Northern Hemisphere who had seen only white ones in nature. Thus, even then the concept "swan" was separable from its colour.

ETA How would the first European visitors to Australia most naturally and accurately have described its fauna to their friends when they returned home?

- In New Holland there are no swans
- In New Holland the swans are black

Last edited by Craig B; 29th May 2013 at 02:11 PM.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2013, 02:20 PM   #33
Nay_Sayer
I say nay!
 
Nay_Sayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Long Island
Posts: 3,892
Tigers are also called;

Afrikaans: tier
Amuzgo: kítziaⁿ
Arabic: نَمِرٌ (námir) m., بَبرٌ (babr) m.
Aramaic:
Syriac: ܛܝܓܪܝܣ (Ṭīgrīs) m.
Hebrew: טיגריס (Ṭīgrīs) m.
Belarusian: тыгра (tigra) f.
Binisayâ: tigre
Bosnian: tigar (bs) m.
Bulgarian: тигър (bg) (tígər) m.
Burmese: ကား (kà)
Catalan: tigre m.
Chinese: 老虎 (lǎohǔ)
Croatian: tigar (hr) m.
Czech: tygr (cs) m.
Danish: tiger
Dutch: tijger (nl) m.
Esperanto: tigro
Finnish: tiikeri (fi)
French: tigre (fr) m.
Frisian: tiger
German: Tiger (de) m.
Middle High German: tiger, tigertier
Old High German: tigir, tigirtior
Greek: τίγρις (el) (tígris) m. and f.
Guaraní: jaguarete
Hebrew: טיגריס (he) (tigris) m.
Hindi: बाघ (bāgh) m., व्याघ्र (vyāghra) m.
Hungarian: tigris (hu)
Indonesian: harimau (id), macan (id)
Interlingua: tigre
Irish: tíogar (ga) m.
Italian: tigre (it) m.
Japanese: 虎, トラ(とら, torá)
Khmer: ខាធំ (khlā-thum)
Kannada: ಹುಲಿ (huli)
Korean: 호랑이 (horang-i)
Kurdish: پڵنگ
Lao: ເສືອ (lo) (syya)
Latin: tigris (la) m. and f.
Latvian: tīģeris m.
Lithuanian: tigras m.
Macedonian: тигар (tigar) m.
Malayalam: പുലി (puli), വ്യാഘ്രം (vyaaghram)
Manchu: (tasha)
Norwegian: tiger (no) m.
Persian: ببر (babr)
Polish: tygrys (pl) m.
Portuguese: tigre (pt) m.
Romanian: tigru (ro) m.
Russian: тигр (ru) (tigr) m.
Sanskrit: व्याघ्रः (vyāghraḥ) m.
Serbian:
Cyrillic: тигар m.
Roman: tigar m.
Sinhala: කොටියා (koṭiya)
Slovak: tiger (sk) m.
Slovene: tiger (sl) m.
Spanish: tigre (es) m.
Swedish: tiger (sv) c.
Tamil: புலி (puli)
Telugu: పులి (puli)
Thai: เสือ (seua)
Tibetan: (tag)
Tupinambá: îagûara, îagûareté
Turkish: kaplan (tr)
Ukrainian: тигр (tyhr) m.
Vietnamese: con hổ, con cọp
Volapük: tiaf
Welsh: teigr m.
Xhosa: ingwe
Zulu: ingwe


Not that this or your post have anything to do with the problem of induction
__________________
Memento Mori
Nay_Sayer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2013, 02:32 PM   #34
keyfeatures
Critical Thinker
 
keyfeatures's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 436
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
A paper cut out set on a black background, or a projected dark shadow of a swan, would have been unmistakable as a swan even to a seventeenth century resident of the Northern Hemisphere who had seen only white ones in nature. Thus, even then the concept "swan" was separable from its colour.

ETA How would the first European visitors to Australia most naturally and accurately have described its fauna to their friends when they returned home?

- In New Holland there are no swans
- In New Holland the swans are black
And how would a 17th century Roman catholic answer the question "Is a beaver a fish?"
keyfeatures is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2013, 02:36 PM   #35
keyfeatures
Critical Thinker
 
keyfeatures's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 436
Originally Posted by Nay_Sayer View Post
Tigers are also called;

Afrikaans: tier
Amuzgo: kítziaⁿ
Arabic: نَمِرٌ (námir) m., بَبرٌ (babr) m.
Aramaic:
Syriac: ܛܝܓܪܝܣ (Ṭīgrīs) m.
Hebrew: טיגריס (Ṭīgrīs) m.
Belarusian: тыгра (tigra) f.
Binisayâ: tigre
Bosnian: tigar (bs) m.
Bulgarian: тигър (bg) (tígər) m.
Burmese: ကား (kà)
Catalan: tigre m.
Chinese: 老虎 (lǎohǔ)
Croatian: tigar (hr) m.
Czech: tygr (cs) m.
Danish: tiger
Dutch: tijger (nl) m.
Esperanto: tigro
Finnish: tiikeri (fi)
French: tigre (fr) m.
Frisian: tiger
German: Tiger (de) m.
Middle High German: tiger, tigertier
Old High German: tigir, tigirtior
Greek: τίγρις (el) (tígris) m. and f.
Guaraní: jaguarete
Hebrew: טיגריס (he) (tigris) m.
Hindi: बाघ (bāgh) m., व्याघ्र (vyāghra) m.
Hungarian: tigris (hu)
Indonesian: harimau (id), macan (id)
Interlingua: tigre
Irish: tíogar (ga) m.
Italian: tigre (it) m.
Japanese: 虎, トラ(とら, torá)
Khmer: ខាធំ (khlā-thum)
Kannada: ಹುಲಿ (huli)
Korean: 호랑이 (horang-i)
Kurdish: پڵنگ
Lao: ເສືອ (lo) (syya)
Latin: tigris (la) m. and f.
Latvian: tīģeris m.
Lithuanian: tigras m.
Macedonian: тигар (tigar) m.
Malayalam: പുലി (puli), വ്യാഘ്രം (vyaaghram)
Manchu: (tasha)
Norwegian: tiger (no) m.
Persian: ببر (babr)
Polish: tygrys (pl) m.
Portuguese: tigre (pt) m.
Romanian: tigru (ro) m.
Russian: тигр (ru) (tigr) m.
Sanskrit: व्याघ्रः (vyāghraḥ) m.
Serbian:
Cyrillic: тигар m.
Roman: tigar m.
Sinhala: කොටියා (koṭiya)
Slovak: tiger (sk) m.
Slovene: tiger (sl) m.
Spanish: tigre (es) m.
Swedish: tiger (sv) c.
Tamil: புலி (puli)
Telugu: పులి (puli)
Thai: เสือ (seua)
Tibetan: (tag)
Tupinambá: îagûara, îagûareté
Turkish: kaplan (tr)
Ukrainian: тигр (tyhr) m.
Vietnamese: con hổ, con cọp
Volapük: tiaf
Welsh: teigr m.
Xhosa: ingwe
Zulu: ingwe


Not that this or your post have anything to do with the problem of induction
What are ligers also called?
keyfeatures is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2013, 03:04 PM   #36
Brian-M
Daydreamer
 
Brian-M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,044
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
No-one has commented on the ridiculous notion that a tiger is a stripy lion.

I did. Post 6.

Originally Posted by Brian-M View Post
We don't call tigers stripy lions because lions are not tigers. They're different species. It's not just fur pattern that sets them apart.
__________________
"That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim
Brian-M is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2013, 03:08 PM   #37
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,841
Originally Posted by keyfeatures View Post
And how would a 17th century Roman catholic answer the question "Is a beaver a fish?"
Either, Yes, or No, or I don't know. How do you answer this question, What does that have to do with the colours of swans?
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2013, 04:55 PM   #38
hgc
Penultimate Amazing
 
hgc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 15,892
Originally Posted by keyfeatures View Post
Okay, so is it fair to assume all swans have long necks? Or all swans have two wings? And if so, why?

I think it's pretty likely that all the species of swan extant are currently known. I wouldn't bet against all swans having long necks and two wings.
hgc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2013, 05:12 PM   #39
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
Originally Posted by keyfeatures View Post
Why are black swans called black swans, but tigers are not called stripy lions?

Why don't we decide that all swans are white, and that swan-shaped birds of other colours should be called something else?
What's this got to do with induction ?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2013, 05:23 PM   #40
BTMO
Overlord of the Underthings
 
BTMO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,521
Occassionally, I call swans "lasagne".
__________________
Insert pithy saying here
BTMO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:38 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.