Induction and Science

And again, your hypocrisy shines through.
It is a shame that your 'good advice' seems not to be applicable to yourself.

I don't see that it matters whether you use the metric system or internationally standardized time. A second is a second, assuming we are talking about a single point of reference (e.g., one spot on the surface of Earth). That's not the most precise way to calculate a second, but it should suffice for most purposes. What exactly are you measuring? Actually, Earth's rotation is slowing down. Since you haven't reported any data or explained exactly what it is you are measuring, I would have to say that you have not presented any results that support your conclusion.Edited by Stephen Push, : No reason given.

Jon — How is an assumption derived from nothing different to a blind random guess? An assumption based on what? Nothing? Or one inductively derived on the limited set of observations?I say the latter. You have yet present any valid alternative beyond "nothing". So you continue to insist that your axioms are derived from nothing despite the fact they are entirely consistent with, and wholly derivable from, everything you have ever observed or experienced.It must just be by extraordinary coincidence that your experience and your axioms tally up so well. I mean it would be utterly unfounded to suggest that these axioms of yours might have been inductively derived from totality of experience rather than nothing wouldn’t it?Only a deranged zealot would possibly make such an outrageous suggestion. Silly me.But with your uncanny ability to make such astonishingly consistent guesses you really should take up gambling. Why don’t you make some of your uncanny assumptions and then deduce who is going to win tomorrow night’s football?

Then you are wrong. Let me explain why. And therein lies the fundamental difference between standards and universal principles. Universal principles are not definitions. Universal principles impose conclusions (albeit tentative and falsifiable ones) on as yet unobserved aspects of nature. When we say F=ma we are not just stating a definition and baselessly hoping (or not) that future observations will comply as per a standard. We are instead actually inductively concluding that nature will behave in a manner that is consistent with this regardless of when or where the event in question takes place. Exactly. If standards cannot be used to derive universal principles then they cannot be considered to represent how science actually works in the real world. Nwr’s description of non-inductive science is refuted as unable to cope with the real workings of that which it claims to describe.

That's beside the point. I'm not saying that induction is never used. I'm saying that in the particular instance of the 2nd law, it wasn't.And actually, that 3rd law doesn't apply to 'every' and 'always', its for specific situations. E.g. a ball of jello isn't going to exert an equal and opposite force on a ball of lead because the jello will deform.I don't think that one's going to help.

One’s qualifications are hardly a guarantee of the quality of ones arguments. But as you have questioned mine specifically I feel compelled to respond.I actually have a degree in physics from Imperial College London. As part of this course I conducted many of the most famous experiments in the history of science. These included measuring the universal gravitational constant, measuring the speed of light, conducting the Michelson Morley ether experiment, the photoelectric effect, Millikan’s experiment to measure the charge of an electron and a whole host of other equally pertinent examples of experimental science in action. In addition as part of this course I did the ‘Philosophy of science’ module where we studied the thinking of Aristotle to Feyerabend via Popper, Lakatos and numerous others. In this particular course I actually achieved the highest marks in my year.Furthermore I have taught physics and maths to university entrance level both in the UK and elsewhere in the world So whilst I don’t doubt that I could from a refresher course of some sorts to re-invigorate my tired old brain I have actually taught much of the content of the freshman level you are suggesting that I should make myself familiar with.You may not like my arguments NWR. You certainly seem unable to deal with them. But whatever failings my arguments may or may not have cannot be attributed to lack of education or experience in the way that you are attempting to assert.Now stop being a dickhead Nwr and try to actually overcome the problem in your position. Namely confronting the fact that universal principles are derived from science, that these are necessarily inductive by their very nature and that your standards argument is unable to cope with this fact.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

You are conflating derivation with application.Even if F=ma was not derived inductively (and I would argue that it was at least in part) it is indisputably applied inductively.

Universal principles are fundamentally different to standards because they impose conclusions (albeit tentative and falsifiable ones) on as yet unobserved aspects of nature.When we say conservation of energy we are not just stating a definition and baselessly hoping that future observations will comply as per a standard. We are instead actually inductively concluding that nature will behave in a manner that is consistent with this principle regardless of when or where the event in question takes place.Any universal principle of science (e.g. Newton’s universal law of gravitation, conservation of energy, the second law of thermodynamics etc. etc. etc.) is considered to apply to ALL relevant events. Whether past present or future, observed or unobserved.You are advocating a description of science that is entirely non-inductive and which thus considers conclusions regarding future events to be nothing more than guesses and opinions. This is the position you espoused clearly earlier in this thread. You described predicted eclipses exactly as guesses and opinions. This view of science makes genuinely scientific universal principles and scientific conclusions derived from these principles regarding as yet unobserved events an impossibility.This view of science is refuted by the very fact that science does derive principles which it considers to be universal and conclusions from these principles pertaining to future events (e.g. the timing of eclipses) which are not guesses or opinions but actual scientific conclusions.Science is inductive whether you like it or not. You are refuted by the existence of scientific principles which are considered by science to be universal. Yet scientific theories do. Thus "standards" are not an accurate description of what science does. Yet science does expect nature to comply with universal principles (albeit tentatively). Thus your non-inductive science is refuted as unable to cope with the real life workings of that which it claims to describe.Your standards argument has nothing to do with actual science. You have invented a form of science that doesn’t exist.

I think nwr's measurements only show that Earth's solar day get longer and shorter.
Nwr then (incorrectly) concludes that the Earth's rotation speed is changing.

ABE: I see you've answered some of my questions in the previous post: what we're talking about as universal principles and whether or not you've done experiments in a physics lab... There's no need to answer them again here, and nothing really else that needs to be addressed, so I'll hide it and reply to your another post. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

I (and others) in this thread have never said that science never uses deductive reasoning.
Our objection is to the likes of Nwr and Jon saying that science never uses inductive reasoning.It appears that you also disagree with them. Are you claiming that Newton's 3rd law doesn't apply to interactions involving jello?
Plastic/elastic deformation does not violate Newton's 3rd Law.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

I was giving him more credit than that. Perhaps I was mistaken.

Read message 396.

Go back and address all of my points. I didn't post them for my own sake.Jon

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!

Only because it angers you so...Jon

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!