Induction and Science

SP writes:I think you are wrong about nwr's position. If you craft the standard properly, the results of your observations and experiments will, by definition, always appear to be in accordance with the standard. But I'm not sure what, if any, role nature has in the process.

Nwr writes:Didn't they teach you anything at Imperial College?

Of course by the terms of your "axioms dervied from nothing" argument any successful rocket launch or landing is just the result of deductions made from spectacularly fortuitous baseless guesses.

The idea that we need to factor in the possibility that Newton's laws won't apply on Mars in the same way that they do on Earth won't even be an issue.

Jon writes:Induction is a strategy for drawing conclusions from premises.

Jon writes:Whew, I guess it's a good thing no one's been arguing for that!

Premises derived from what Jon?

How is an assumption "derived from nothing" different to an entirely random guess?

Jon writes:That doesn't help me understand what 'applied inductively' means.

Wiki writes:Inductive reasoning, also known as induction or inductive logic, or educated guess in colloquial English, is a kind of reasoning that draws generalized conclusions from a finite collection of specific observations.

Your entire position in this thread has been based on "derived from nothing" premises and now suddenly they are "off-topic" because you are unable to answer a question without your idiocy being so apparent that even you might have to recognise it?Incredible.

As per the Mars example. We are applying Newtons laws to a new situation based on the inductive conclusion that if they can be successfully applied now on Earth they can also be successfully applied whenever on Mars too.

Jon writes:So, 'applied inductively' means applying to specific instances the conclusions that you believe to be derived from inductive reasoning?

It means to apply to a specific new instance on the basis of inductively concluding that it applies to all instances.

Straggler writes:Jon — How is an assumption derived from nothing different to a blind random guess?

Jon — How is an assumption derived from nothing different to a blind random guess?

Straggler writes:I see we have reached that inevitable stage where you have effectively lost the argument so rather than actually engage in any further discussion you simply start asserting that you have made lots and lots of unanswered points.Rather than go through the usual routine of me asking you what these points are and you repeatedly refusing to cite any of them whilst continuing to insist that there are lots and lots of them why don't we do something different this time?Why don't you pick out that one most pertinent and argument clinching point that you think remains unanswered and put it to me?

Jon writes:Sorry, Straggler, but if you have no intent on addressing the points brought against your position, I've no reason to continue bringing points against your position for you to simply ignore in your quest to ask as many irrelevant questions as possible.As I've said to you many other times; when you're ready to address the points against your position, feel free to do so and we can continue from there. But, until then...

This is a good question.

If you take me up on this offer we will deal with this multitude of apparently unaddressed points that you have made one by one.But I am not going to let you get away with your "I have made lots of points" bollocks this time.