Induction and Science

Fine by me. Well for example if gravity were to suddenly start randomly swapping between being an attractive force and a repulsive one.Or if friction were to sometimes amplify rather than oppose the motion between two objects with no pattern as to when it would do which.Is it possible for these things to occur - I would say probably not but I would also say that conclusion was derived inductively. Which is why I think it is pertinent to ask how Nwr comes to these same conclusions without using induction.If you can explain his position then I would be delighted to hear it.

So what, according to your view of science, is the scientific conclusion regarding gravity operating as we currently observe it this time next week?Is it not obvious that in a thread about science as non-indictive that this, rather than your opinion, is what I am asking?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Remember Bill? Before Bill was tragically killed (by a fast moving bus that he believed would pass harmlessly through him) Bill told me that based on his epistemology he knew that inductive reasoning was the opposite of that which you have described. I am glad you think so highly of Bill's epistemological methods and conclusions.So who is right? You or Bill?Or both of you simultaneously?

I have, in this thread, adopted Bill's epistemological model.Thus we have come to two mutually exclusive conclusions based on deductive logic alone starting from different premises.Deductive logic will only ever tell you what is already contained in your starting assumptions.Thus we are faced with the question of how we are to derive the point from which we launch our deductive logic.I would suggest that science uses inductive reasoning to arrive at these launch points for deductive reasoning.From where do you think they are sourced?

Science doesn't have anything to say about gravity next week? Are you serious?Science does make predictions yes?How can science predict the position of the moon or any other celestial object next week without inductively concluding that gravity will behave in the future in accordance with how it has been observed to behave thus far?How can science make any conclusions about any future event without invoking a degree of inductive reasoning from which further logical deductions can then be made? Predicting when eclipses will occur (for example) is not a scientific conclusion?

Not only does your entire epistemological stance necessarily result in contradictions your notion of non-inductive science makes absolutely no sense in terms of making predictions.How can scientific predictions be made without being based on the inductive conclusion that natural phenomenon will behave in the future as they have been observed to behave thus far?How can science make any conclusions about any future event without invoking a degree of inductive reasoning from which further logical deductions can then be made? Except that you accepted it as valid and now I am applying it. As per Bill's epistemology: My premise is that what I believe is true. I believe that induction is not deduction without the premises being stated. Thus my conclusion is that induction is not deduction without the premises being stated. Thus I conclude that you are wrong.Now I think Bill's method of knowing is silly. But you said it was as valid as any other merely because it is internally logically consistent. So I am going to apply Bill's epistemology to demonstrate to you that simply picking ones internally consistent axioms to derive the conclusion one wants is not a very useful method of finding out anything at all.And this, of course, is exactly what you have done in your little logic exercise. How do we predict if not by applying deductive logic to conclusions inductively derived from necessarily incomplete evidence? Deductive logic will only give you outputs that are consistent with your inputs. Nonsense in = Nonsense out.So we have to have some way of deriving our starting point for deductive logic. In science those starting points for deduction are inductively derived conclusions. It is of the utmost importance. Because purely deductive methods mean that - Nonsense In = Nonsense Out

Your entire notion of non-inductive science makes absolutely no sense in terms of science being able to make predictions.How can scientific predictions be made without being based on the inductive conclusion that natural phenomenon will behave in the future as they have been observed to behave thus far?How can science make any conclusions about any future event without invoking a degree of inductive reasoning from which further logical deductions can then be made? Let's hope we don't launch any satellites or fly any aeroplanes or do anything else that relies on us "guessing" correctly then huh?Your position on this is a shambles.

You have excelled yourself this time. How is that not true of all scientific conclusions predictive or otherwise?You seem to have just put yourself into a position of arguing that science isn't scientific because it is can only result in conclusions derived from individuals.How hilarious.If you are going to dispute this please provide an example of a scientific conclusion that is not derived from individuals and is thus considered (by you) to be more scientific than a predicted eclipse. Of course. Science is tentative.

Are you seriously suggesting that predictions (such as eclipses) have not achieved "consensus acceptance by a large body of scientists"?The entirety of applied science is based on the inductively reasoned conclusion that natural phenomenon will behave in the future as they have been observed to behave thus far.Yet you call such conclusions "guesses" or "opinions".Your position is ridiculous.

Jon if you accept that not all premises are equally valid then you necessarily accept that not all deductively derived conclusions are equally valid.Welcome to sanity. Bear this in mind the next time you start deducing things from premises without considering the validity or origin of the premises themselves. Because the premises of your little logic exercise are themselves inductively derived.Your premise that unobserved phenomenon will behave in the same way as observed phenomenon is itself inductively derived from experience.Between periods of observation the world appears to have continued to operate as it did whilst you were observing it. Thus you inductively conclude that it did and always will. Your little logic exercise is itself derived from inductive reasoning.How funny is that?

I have provided you with the source of your premises and shown your argument to be ultimately inductive in the process.The conclusion that the world will always continue to operate when unobserved as it does when observed is inductively derived.Unless you can provide a deductive source for your premises you remain refuted.

Then how can you claim that your axioms are have any more validity than those I used when I applied Bill's epistemology to come to the opposite conclusion to you?You cannot. Not without contradicting your own argument. Unless you can tell us why the baseless assumptions you used as axioms are valid and mine are "bullshit" you really have no argument at all do you?The fact is you have arrived at your axioms inductively and then used your litte logic exercise to "prove" the opposite.You have done the equivalent of writing the paradoxical statement "This sentence is not true".

The conclusion that unobserved phenomenon will behave in the same way as observed phenomenon is itself inductively derived from experience.Between periods of observation the world appears to have continued to operate as it did whilst being oberved. Thus we inductively conclude that it did so and will continue to do so.What are the missing premises here?And if any exist are they themselves inductively arrived at?

NASA is a metaphor for who exactly? NASA eclipse siteWhen we say "science concludes...." how is it different? Be specific. Give an example of a scientific conclusion that is not derived from individual scientists and is thus considered (by you) to be more scientific than a predicted eclipse. That sounds like your trademark method of evading points you cannot actually deal with.You have invented a form of "science" that cannot say anything about any future event because any conclusion based on natural phenomenon behaving in the future as they have been observed to behave thus far is a "guess" or an "opinion" by the terms of your silly silly argument.

And yet the scientific conclusion is that a body under no resultant force will remain at a constant velocity.In the past, now and, inductively in the future too.Your non-inductive science remains incapable of coping with that "future" problem.Why would this theory apply tomorrow unless we inductively conclude that the physical property we call "inertial mass" will behave in a way that is consistent with all observations up until now?