Induction and Science

Exactly. That's well understood when inductive reasoning is used in science. That's why the tentative conclusions arrived at are stated as theories or laws, rather than facts.

You have not come to the conclusion that "all Crowes are wearing black shoes". You have come to the conclusion that it would be absurd, on the information given, to conclude that all Crowes are wearing black shoes.What you typed first as a supposed "conclusion" was just something you put there in order to make your case that inductive logic is absurd.You then infer, by very similar bad inductive reasoning to that which gave you the faked conclusion, that because your faked "conclusion" which "nobody would jump to" is "absurd", this leads to the general conclusion that inductive reasoning is no use to science.So, let's examine why you came to the very reasonable conclusion that it would be absurd to come to your fake "conclusion".Your three observations are about the real world, so they don't happen in a void. But even if treated as being in a void of other information, it would be absurd to come to any conclusions at all (most people might wear black shoes, or it might be very rare). If not treated as being in a void, it's easy to make the observation that wearing black shoes is common, and there's no explanation other than that required for your observations.Good scientists will use any relevant information available to them, which is why they can make inductive reasoning work to good effect.Outside formal science, most of us use it to good effect most of the time. We would be likely to die at a young age if we didn't do so.It's unavoidable.

No it doesn't, partly because it wasn't your real conclusion. Neither was it anyone else's real conclusion. Your actual conclusion was that it would be absurd to conclude that all Crowes wear black shoes. Read your O.P., and you'll see that I'm correct. Exactly. The absurd cases are often described as "weak induction". Try "use all the relevant information you can think of to decide whether your premises/observations are significantly supportive of the hypothesis you're considering, and examine any alternative hypotheses that might also be supported by them."Examine your own thought processes in relation to the O.P. example. How did you come to your real conclusion, which was that it would be absurd to conclude that there was a connection between the shoe colour and the name? You pruned easily, and so would everyone else reading that O.P. Crows aren't actually all one colour, and they're not named after a colour, as far as I know. Blackbirds are named after a colour, but they're not all black. But I see what you're getting at. Crows are a biological group which can be expected to share characteristics, but "Crowes" can't really be described as a biological (or cultural) sub-group within humans.However, I don't think that's the first reason that your example didn't work. It's simply that three people with anything in common (red hair, very long noses, etc.) wearing the most common colour of shoe is unremarkable to start with. So, even if you'd described the three people as working for a specific company (which might have a dress code) you've still got too little information to infer a connection. Why not the two combined? The "systematicity" is, in a sense, the "pruning", and is what makes the scientific theories which rely on inductive reasoning more reliable than the casual theories we make in everyday life, certainly. But even in everyday life, many people are pretty good at pruning most of the time. They bring all the relevant observations they can think of to bear on the question.I repeat: you pruned correctly in your O.P., and in order to have an example to make your case, it would have been better to use a real one with which a lot of people are known to have come to an absurd conclusion in science. Even with a few such examples, you're stuck with using inductive reasoning (ironically) if you want to suggest that inductive reasoning is useless to science.Despite the strong tone of the O.P., perhaps you are now on the way to agreeing that inductive reasoning (combined with what you call the "systematicity" of science) can and does play a role in science.Had you stated that inductive arguments need careful pruning in order to be useful to science, I think there would've been widespread agreement. Edited by bluegenes, : pruned extra word!

What about the humour thread? The O.P. made me smile. Bluegenes' parody of the O.P.Premise: In the given particular example of inductive reasoning, the conclusion arrived at is absurd.Conclusion: Generally, inductive reasoning is absurd.Method used above: Inductive reasoning.

How are you supporting the claim you made in the O.P.? You claim that it is a myth that science uses induction.So, can you demonstrate that no inductive reasoning is ever used in science without using inductive reasoning?Here's your O.P. again. What you do here is give a non-real-world example. No scientist would form a hypothesis based on three people wearing the most common colour of shoe. It's not even a remarkable coincidence, and no-one would notice it.Then, from your particular example, you reason inductively to the general, and give your conclusion that it is a myth that science uses inductive reasoning.Either you are presenting an inductive theory that science doesn't use inductive reasoning, or you've read every scientific paper ever written and confirmed that there's no induction present.Which is it?