Induction and Science

Newtons third law tells us that a force is not merely something defined as being that which causes a change of velocity. It is a statement of the much more fundamental idea of force as an interaction between bodies. This underpins the logic of the other two laws.Forces always arrive from interactions. That is what Newton's third law tells us.We have never observed an acceleration that is not the result of an interaction.
We have never observed an acceleration without a corresponding equal and opposite force acting on an interacting body.
If we did observe an isolated body undergoing an acceleration Newtons laws would have been violated in a fundamental way.We never have and inductively we conclude that we never will. So in depth evidence based investgation sometimes refutes common sense notions of how the world works.What is your point? Yes we had to start thinking about the world and how it works in a way that transends everyday common sense notions.What is your point?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

ALL of our scientific theories are based on the constancy of natural phenomeon.When we say we are not saying that this relationship applies only in the past. We are saying that this relationship applies now and into the future.Hence our ability to scientifically make conclusions about the timing of eclipses and such like. Albeit tentatively. It's possible that gravity and friction etc. will suddenly stop behaving as observed so far. But all scientific theories are based on the inductive conclusion that they won't. The fact that we can and do apply our theories to future events is based on the inductive conclusion natural phenomen will continue to behave as observed thus far.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. It should be noted hat the key difference between genuinely scientific theories and pseudoscience like ID is the ability to successfully predict new observations.Any fool can construct an internally consistent explanatory theory (look at omphalism) but one that predicts and discovers can be considered genuinely scientific. Ask any IDist what they have doscovered recently if you doubt that.So don't you dare dismiss the relevance of prediction and then accuse others of advocting creationist style reasoning.The reason for your intense confusion is that you are looking at this in simplistic black and white terms of science either being wholly inductive or not inductive at all.Science is neither wholly inductive nor wholly deductive. It comprises elements of both. An inductively reasoned speculative conclusion is drawn. The logical consequences of this are deductively derived (i.e. predictions are made). These predictions are tested. The original inductively derived conclusion is thus either verified or refuted as being in accordance with reality. There is more to it than that regarding tentativity and such matters.But you hopefully get the gist.

Your problem is that you are looking at scientific conclusions in an ad-hoc manner. The genius of people like Newton and Einstein was their ability to see through the mundane and pick out the universal principles. But by their very nature the whole idea of universal principles is inductive because (as the name suggests) it derives universal conclusions from necessarily incomplete evidence. It seems that without induction we cannot conclude that anything we have not actually observed has or will behave in a manner consistent with those things we have observed. The position of the Earth in relation to the Sun is indisputably what defines our seasons. Try to see beyond the mundane and find the universal principles at play Nwr. It isn't just about "next week" it is about whether our scientific principles and theories can be applied to questions where we have limited observations. Past, present or future. We have never seen a planet or a Sun form. But based on our knowledge of gravity we can say that we "know" how planets and stars form can we not? Is this not induction?By the terms of your argument Newton’s universal law of gravitation applies only to those specific cases where we have actually observed specific masses interacting in this way. You don’t think that by calling this a "universal law" science is inductively extrapolating this to tentatively cover all such interactions regardless of when or where they occur? You did describe any conclusion based on the "assumption" that physical phenomenon will continue to behave as thus far observed as a "guess" or an "opinion" did you not?Is it possible to make any scientific conclusion pertaining to any future event without that "assumption"? What do you mean by "know"? Are you talking about certainty?Do we not "know" when eclipses are going to occur? Are we guessing? Is it an opinion? In what sense do we not "know" that doesn't apply to any other tentative scientific conclusion? That isn't what I said. But I am intrigued to know how your non-inductive science argument distinguishes between genuine scientific conclusions and things like omphalism if you are going to abandon prediction (leading to discovery) as the key difference?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Well I used different axioms "derived from nothing" and came to the opposite conclusion to you. As per Message 211So now what? I am glad you think so highly of Bill's epistemological methods and conclusions as these were what I was using to come to the opposite conclusion to you.That's the problem with axiomatic deduction of the silly sort you are advocating. You can pick your axioms and deduce whatever you want to.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

To make a scientific prediction you must necessarily first conclude that a given phenomenon will continue as it has been observed to behave thus far.If you base a prediction on the inverse square law it isn't going to work if gravity suddenly starts operating as an inverse cube law instead now is it? An evidentially well founded but still tentative one. Very well. Yet we keep accurately determining when they are going to occur and being demonstrably correct about it.Go figure.

It is an unavoidable consequence of everything you have said.Without induction how is it possible to have anything that could even be called a universal principle? By it’s very definition a universal principle is a conclusion that has been extrapolated to apply beyond those instances actually observed.Universal principles such as Newton’s third law or Newton’s law of gravitation are considered to apply in ALL relevant cases. Regardless of where or when and whether or not anyone was actually observing. How can a universal scientific principle exist without inductive reasoning?There is always uncertainty in any scientific conclusion whether it relates to the past present or future is there not? What is your point as it applies specifically inductive conclusions pertaining to to future events? Uncertainty is always involved in any scientific conclusion. Are you revoking your previous assertion that any inductively derived conclusion about future events was an "opinion" or a "guess"? We extrapolate the law of gravitation derived from observations to situations that have not been directly observed. How is this not induction? If you did spectacularly fail to factor in the other considerations and make that inductive conclusion you would of course falsify this when this initial wholly inductive and speculative conclusion was tested as per the scientific method. The scientific method tests conclusions partly because of the very fact that induction is an imperfect tool.But your idea that science is induction free because induction cannot be guaranteed to lead to correct conclusions is silly. It ignores the other aspects of the scientific method. You get to universal principles via the scientific method. Which as I have made clear previously incorporates aspects of both induction and deduction. Predictions indisputably have led to discoveries. See Message 132. But it is a two way street and the interflow between the two is how science often progresses. Yes - And that is what a "universal principle" in science is. Practically by definition. By the terms of your "induction-free-science" argument genuinely scientific universal principles are an impossibility. Yet they exist.Thus you are refuted.

None of this explains how science can derive what are considered to be universal laws/principles from necessarily incomplete data.That unavoidably requires a degree of inductive reasoning does it not?If NOT - Then how?

You are welcome to your subjective opinion. But if you continue to insist that axioms can be subjectively plucked from ones arse in order to deduce whatever one wants to "prove" then there is absolutely no reason to consider your conclusion as superior to mine is there? If you think I am doing anything different to you here you are wrong. I am just being more blatant about it to make a point.Anyway — We have started from different axioms and come to mutually exclusive conclusions. By the terms of your own insane arguments both our mutually exclusive conclusions are equally correct. Go figure. How do you know when something will be an exception to this?Your question amounts to - Do I agree that the observance or non-observance of something may or may not impact it's behaviour? I suppose so 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 observed. Thus we inductively conclude that it did so and will continue to do so.What are the missing premises here? Or have I falsified your little logic exercise?

Jon when you wake up tomorrow morning do you think the world and it's workings will show every indication of having continued along the same lines as when you are observing it?Have you ever woken up to observe anything else?
Do you think you ever will? You described my axioms as bullshit. If ones axioms are bullshit does it not follow that ones deductions are also bullshit? But if you are happy to describe your own conclusions as bullshit I am not going to argue with you. Could you then explain how you determine which of the two (if either) mutually exclusive conclusions is to be considered correct? If you cannot do this maybe you should concede that your argument necessitates them being equal in this regard. Just as I said. Then your conclusion is ultimately derived from nothing and is thus bullshit. My conclusion however is derived inductively as explained below. Indeed. It has never done anything else in my experience. Inductively I conclude that it never will. Yep. Yes it is. If everytime I woke up the world and it’s workings had changed beyond all recognition or in a manner that was inconsistent with it operating identically regardless of my observing it I would be unable to make the conclusion that I have.As things stand this has never happened. Based on this limited set of observations I inductively conclude that the world always behaves in the same way regardless of whether I am observing it or not.Which part of this is not clear to you? That isn’t what I said now is it? See above. Of course it requires observations. And I think you will find that this is exactly what I have detailed above. If I wake up tomorrow and find that I am a jellyfish who lives inside a cactus and breathes fire (or some other such surreality) my inductive reasoning will have failed me.I very much doubt this will happen. My argument involves making a generalised conclusion from a limited set or observations. This is called inductive reasoning. I think you will find it is your derived from nothing assertions that are pointless. Then your little exercise in logic has been falsified by the terms of your own challenge.

Perhaps you can explain specifically how Newton's third law which tells us that ALL forces are the result of interactions (as per Message 275) was arrived at wholly deductively rather than from a limited set of observations.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Whether or not we can conclude that the world will continue to operate as it has been previously observed to do so and on which our scientific models and theories are based - Is not important to science? Well given that Nwr has described the ability to accurately predict eclipses as "opinions" and "guessing" you may well be right.What are these stringent criteria of yours? Because I suspect your criteria make it impossible for us to ever know anything in practise. I think we can say that we "know" when eclipses will occur. Tentatively. But with enough evidential support and demonstrable reliability of our methods to call this "knowledge" albeit not certainty. As has been noted by others it is you appears to be flip-flopping between different definitions of "know" so I suggest that you take your own advice and state exactly what it is you mean.

Your standard appears to only to apply as a method of organising existing observations into a logical and efficient manner. It doesn’t appear to be able to say anything about why we should expect future observations to conform to that standard or how we can derive universal principles from incomplete evidence. Why would you expect future observations to conform to a standard unless you are inductively concluding that the phenomenon in question will operate as thus far observed?How do you assess the value of the idea? Bearing in mind that any extrapolation of the idea to cover unobserved instances of a phenomenon necessarily requires you to assume the constancy of said phenomenon. Which is itself an inductive conclusion. Given that you have described any conclusion based on the inductively concluded consistency of natural phenomenon as opinions or guesses some elaboration might have helped here. Not your strong point I know..but. Once again you seem to be basing your argument on an all or nothing black and white idiocy of a conclusion being either wholly inductive or not inductive at all. Nobody here that I am aware of is saying that any highly accepted scientific conclusion was arrived at purely by means of induction. Induction is imperfect and the scientific method of testing conclusions etc. has been constructed at least partly to achieve reliability of conclusion despite that imperfectionWithout the observations there would be no law of gravitation. This is surely indisputable? The fact that based on limited observations we have constructed a theory that applies to ALL instances universally would seem to be the very definition of induction. Even if additional steps were taken to ensure reliability.If you are saying this is not so you need to detail how and why this is not the case with at least one example. Because at the moment all we really have is you asserting It’s not induction. It’s a standard. Why would you expect future observations to conform to a standard unless you are inductively concluding that the phenomenon in question will operate as thus far observed?

But unless you inductively conclude that nature will continue to behave as observed thus far why would your standard apply to any new observations?And if this "standard" cannot be said to apply to new and as yet unmade observations how can you call it a "universal principle". Do you think nature cares what the standard is or will behave in accordance with this standard just because we have defined it as a standard? None of this answers the question of why we should expect future observations of nature to behave in accordance with the standard that has been constructed.And if this "standard" cannot be said to apply to new and as yet unmade observations how can you call it a "universal principle".

But in characteristic fashion Nwr evades this key question and simply provides the following vaguety: Do you really think nature cares what the standard is or will behave in accordance with this standard just because we have defined it as a standard?Unless you are inductively concluding that nature will continue to behave as observed thus far why would your standard apply to any new observations?Without induction what reason do you have to expect your standard to apply to anything that has not been directly observed to behave in the standard manner? Then rather than evade why don't you answer the questions. Specifically explain how a "standard" can be expected to apply to future observations without first inductively concluding that nature will behave in a manner that is consistent with past observations.

Do you claim to know things you have experienced?Can you give an example of something that you do know?Do you think we can all know that your parents had sex wth each other at least once? Although I am sure most of us, inclding you, were not there to experience that particular event.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.