Induction and Science

Will gravity still be operating as currently experienced next week?On what basis do you make your conclusion?You have not answered this. Why can you not answer this? It requires cause and effect. How do you derive very specific causal relationships on necessarily incomplete evidence without inductive reasoning?You have proffered no alternative. You are thinking like an evasionist. The topic is for you to describe not just why you think induction is flawed but to to provide a feasible alternative. You have not done that.So far you have failed to explain on what basis you think we can rely on gravity, friction or indeed anything else from one moment to the next. Here is your opportunity to describe your alternative as applied to a specific example.Will gravity still be operating as currently experienced next week?On what basis do you make your conclusion?AbE - And don't blurt some meaningless phrase (e.g. "statistical reasoning" ) at me. Actually explain how you are deriving your conclusion and highlight how this differs from inductive reasoning. Be specific.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Did you deduce this?How?

Indeed. A1: The observance or non-observance of something will not impact its nature, w/ some exceptions (axiom)
C1: What is true of an observed thing will be true of that same thing if unobserved, w/ some exceptions (A1)
P1: Inductive arguments are all of the same form (inductive-form), as per the definition (definition)
P2: The inductive-form argument is not an exception to A1 (A1)
P3: What is true of the observed inductive-form argument will be true of the unobserved inductive-form argument (P1+P2+C1)
P4: The observed inductive-form argument is just a deductive-form argument with unstated premises (observance)
P5: Since the observed inductive-form argument is just a deductive-form argument with unstated premises, so to is the unobserved inductive-form argument (P3+P4)
C2: The inductive-form argument, whether observed or unobserved, is just a deductive-form argument with unstated premises (P5)Have fun!Jon

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!

Actually, nwr has answered this question for you:

quote:

---

nwr in Message 160:

​

Straggler writes:
Will gravity still be operating as currently experienced next week?

Probably. But we would have to wait a week to find out.

---

Again, not true; nwr has, indeed, explained it:

quote:

---

nwr in Message 162:

​

I'm not doubting that we use statistical evidence in a variety of ways.

---

If dissatisfied with an answer, or in need of clarification, just point out what dissatisfies you or where you need clarification. This will help build understanding and move the discussion along; whereas repeating the same thing over and over again only creates misunderstanding and stalls the discussion.Jon

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!

My maths teacher did this 'divide by zero' trick so that he could mathematically prove that 1 = 2.
But he did it knowing it was flawed.

???

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!

No, it doesn't.There are many predictions made on a statistical basis, where there are no known natural laws and no known causal relations. To the contrary, I have done that.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

Thanks Jon. I'm glad that at least somebody is reading my posts.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

I take induction to be making a truth claim. It might be an uncertain truth claim, but it is still a truth claim.Acting in certain ways, on the basis of experience, is not making any truth claim."Relying on Newtonian physics" is a rather vague statement. I have no idea what you would consider that to cover.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

Well I started from different premises and deductively reached the opposite conclusion to you regarding inductive reasoning.So now what?

a = b
a^2 = a*b
a^2-b^2 = a*b-b^2
(a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b)
(a+b) = b
a+a = a
2a = a
2 = 1

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

OK. I will. What is "statistical reasoning"? How does it work? In what way is it significantly different to the sort of inductive reasoning that we are all familiar with?And specifically describe how can it be used to derive the conclusion that gravity will "probably" still be operating as currently experienced?Is that clearer? As will actually answering questions rather than posting stock phrases and meaningless philosopho-sounding but unexplained terms as answers.

Such as? Where? Is "statistical reasoning" is your only response? If so I ask:What is "statistical reasoning"?
How does it work?
In what way is it significantly different to the sort of inductive reasoning that we are all familiar with?And can you specifically describe how can it be used to derive the conclusion that gravity will "probably" still be operating as currently experienced?Your usual trick of posting stock phrases and meaningless philosopho-sounding but unexplained terms as answers just isn't good enough.Edited by Straggler, : Fix quotes

Why?

Thanks, sub. But I'm aware of this fallacious proof; what gets me is how it relates to what I said.JonEdited by Jon, : R → G

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!