Induction and Science

Try harder. Maybe you will be able to discover the mistake in your thinking.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

Then on what basis can we predict anything?Will gravity still be operating as currently experienced next week?You said "probably". Can you explain this answer or are you just guessing? Questions are not "stupid" just because you do not like them or cannot answer them in a manner that is consistent with your position.Will gravity still be operating as currently experienced next week? On what basis do you make your conclusion?You have not answered this at all so stop asserting that you have.

Try being less ambiguous. Maybe you will find that you actually have a position that can be scrutinised.But maybe you don't want that......

Of course I am guessing.I have no reason to suspect that it will change. But I have no way of knowing that it won't change.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

I think I have actually been quite precise. I suggest that you go back and carefully read the earlier posts, which were in the other thread.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

Is guessing a reliable method of drawing conclusions? We have the consistency of natural law based on inductive reasoning that says it almost certainly won't change.I will bet you everything I own Vs everything you own that a pen dropped next Thursday will obey all the natural laws that apply today.Will you take that bet?

I have yet to see you ever say anything unambiguous or precise here at EvC.You are the master of ambiguity and evasiveness.

quote:

---

The premises of an inductive logical argument indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion but do not entail it; that is, they suggest truth but do not ensure it.

---

sourceSo, you use inductive logic in every day life.
As does science.So - this thread is done?

I would call that "statistical reasoning" rather than "inductive logic."I have already agree that we use statistical reasoning - see Message 162 - but you won't get Newton's laws that way.

Prediction does not require natural laws.You are thinking like a creationist. Granted. Nevertheless you are asking stupid questions, which contribute nothing to the topic.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

Fine.
But please remember that everyone else is using the established name for inductive logic - which is: 'inductive logic'.
And 'statistical reasoning' already has a definition which does not describe your behaviour.Things can get very confused when someone decides to arbitrarily re-define words in the English language.

You are not talking about my behavior. You are talking only about what you assert to be my behavior.Rudolph Carnap wrote a book "Logical Foundations of Probability" in which he analyzed induction. He came up with a measure, I think he called "degree of confirmation" achieved by the evidence used. And he came to the conclusion that degree of confirmation for laws such as Newton's (I think he actually used Einstein in his comment) have a degree of confirmation of zero.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

There is, of course, no such thing as 'induction'. All conclusions are arrived at deductively. That a premise may not be stated, admitted to, or even realized has little bearing on the fact that it actually exists.Jon

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!

Actually I was referring to how you describe your own behaviour.But anyway - go ahead and change the meanings of words as you wish.
Just don't forget that only you will understand.

Correction: they are human constructs that we use to describe what has happened in nature according to our limited set of observations. If you want to say 'happens' then you are using induction. No. But relying on Newtonian physics in novel situations would be induction.