Induction and Science

A1 is false, unless your exceptions include quantum phenomena. Even if you treat quantum phenomena as an exception, there is no way to know whether A1 is true. In effect you have, as others have already pointed out, used induction to derive your axiom.Similarly, deductive arguments in science that started with premises the truth of which were unknowable would be useless formalisms. That is one reason why science often has to rely on induction.Edited by Stephen Push, : No reason given.Edited by Stephen Push, : No reason given.Edited by Stephen Push, : No reason given.

I don't believe that the third law just popped into Newton's head without evidence. In Principia Newton cites the example of a horse pulling a rope tied to a stone. Later observations and experiments have confirmed the law, but prior evidence must have inspired Newton to propose it.

That sounds like a textbook case of inductive reasoning to me. Specific observations (e.g., weighing things, horses pulling stones) provide support for a generalized conclusion (third law of motion).

Is this a trick question? Weighing was your example. Why did you cite it if you thought Newton could not have used it in formulating his third law?In any event, I think the question is moot, because it appears we were both wrong. Modulous in message 258 of this thread provided the correct answer: Newton used pendulums, not scales.Forgive me if I am raising an issue that has already been addressed, but does the fact the Newton says he used the inductive method count for anything?

Climate scientists routinely assume that physical laws will continue to operate in the future as they have in the past to predict what climate trends are likely to be in the future.I'd also like to restate my question from an earlier post: What do you make of the fact the Newton said he used inductive reasoning to develop his laws of motion?

You apparently have a teleological view of evolution. It's OK to call evolution "pragmatic" in an metaphorical sense, but evolution in not actually pragmatic. It is an unplanned process that mindlessly follows physical laws. Extinctions are not failures; they are just part of the process. To say "it works" is an anthropocentric concept. Nature has no interest in whether it "works" or not; it just is.Because evolution is a mindless process, of course it doesn't use inductive reasoning or make predictions. Evolutionary biologists use inductive reasoning and make predictions. The ability to make predictions and test them is a hallmark of science.Edited by Stephen Push, : No reason given.

If the world were totally homogeneous, there wouldn't be any science because we wouldn't exist.You are confusing two different uses of the word "consistent." Scientists assume that the laws of nature operate consistently in different places and at different times. They make no assumption that the phenomena caused by those laws will be consistent. You are correct that the world is lumpy. When consistent laws act on a lumpy world you get a different pattern of lumps.

Again, if you were speaking metaphorically, there would be no problem. But in an earlier post, in which you tried to refute Straggler's argument by linking it to ID, you said: In that quote, you must be using the term "pragmatic" literally, because you say that if we equate pragmatism with induction, then evolution must "depend on inductive predictions." That is teleological. Imputing ends to the evolutionary process in the essence of ID.

The weather is a phenomenon, not a law. Scientists assume that laws work consistently. But when you have different starting conditions, consistent laws will produce different outcomes. In the meterology example, different places and different times constitute different starting conditions. I see the source of the confusion. Sometimes the words "law" and "phenomenon" are used synonymously. As I am using these terms, a "law" of gravity and a "phenomenon" of gravity are two different things. Newton's universal law of gravitation and the Einstein field equations are laws; an apple falling to the ground and gravitational lensing are phenomena.

All true. But given that Newton made the effort to explain his process, it seems to me that it would be fair to give him the benefit of the doubt until we have good reasons to reject his account.

They are not merely human constructs. They are human constructs that more or less accurately describe and predict certain aspects of nature.

Well, that's not what you said in the posts I quoted. But if that's what you're saying now, OK. What does that have to do with the topic under discussion?

I have. I've read dozens of your posts in this thread, and I've offered my critique of your position.You say you haven't read Newton, but you seem to dismiss his position out of hand. You might want to read his Rules of Reasoning and tell us where you think he has gone wrong.Edited by Stephen Push, : No reason given.

This is the point I had made: Scientists, using inductive reasoning, hold that the laws of nature are universal. You attempted to refute that position by saying the the weather is not "consistent." You are confusing universal (or "consistent") causes with variable (or "inconsistent") effects that result when the universal laws act on different starting conditions.Using your weather example, summers are warmer than winters because the northern hemisphere is tilted toward the sun during the summer. The relationship between temperture and the amount of solar energy striking the surface of the northern hemisphere is consistent throughout the seasons. Of course, that's a simplification, since the temperture is also affected by such things as ocean currents and the build up of greenhouse gases. Meterologists would have to apply several laws to develop a reasonably accurate model.Edited by Stephen Push, : No reason given.Edited by Stephen Push, : No reason given.Edited by Stephen Push, : No reason given.Edited by Stephen Push, : No reason given.

What is your basis for this view of "conventional wisdom"?I don't agree that scientists treat level 2 as a black box. Tinkering with level 2 is essential to experimental science. I don't know much about AI. Which natural scientists do you believe are ignoring level 2? Induction is implicit in the practice of science at level 2. For instance, if I perform an experiment in sensory perception on N individuals of a certain species, I am assuming that their abilitiies will be representative of all members of the species. What do you mean by pragmatism? Are you referring to Rorty's views? That's what all experimental scientists do. That sounds inconsistent to me. Newton has clearly stated that he developed his laws by induction. If you claim that induction doesn't operate at level 2, how can you also claim Newton's laws are being used to reconfigure level 2?If Newton's laws are not based on induction, on what are they based?