Induction and Science

Those relying on the conclusions derived from blind random guesses might well care.I am about to have another of those "derived from nothing" axiom moments.Urrrrggghhh!!(**Clench and squeeze**)Axiom: Jon can fly.From this I deduce that if you climb to the top of the nearest tower block, jump off and head East you will be here in London in no time.I'll buy you a beer.

So you cannot name a single as yet unaddressed point then? Despite there being lots of them?Oh dear. Indeed. "Derived from nothing". I have. Your "method" is what is more commonly known as "guessing" and then coming to the exact same conclusions as the rest of us do inductively.It is a miracle of sheer coincidence.

Whatever, Straggler. Just don't squeeze so hard that you hurt yourself.Jon

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

It is so nice to see you using inductive reasoning.

Please jump off the nearest skyscraper Jon. Please.For me?

Classic.How did I miss that........

I guess I was wrong. You have no idea what my argument is. Axioms are derived from nothing; this is not my argument; it is the definition of an axiom. My argument is still that inductive arguments are deductive arguments with missing premises. Nevertheless, you've yet to lay out a single 'inductive' argument that I could not make deductive. I laid out my argument very neatly; stated premises, axioms, and conclusions. All that is asked is that you also lay out your example arguments in this fashion so they can be easily understood and addressed. For example:Axiom1: What I see is Real.
Premise1: I see the Sun.
Conclusion1: The Sun is Real.When you have one like this, post it and we can address it.Jon

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

From where are these premises derived? You want me to layout a deductive argument to show you why your arguments are ultimately inductive?

No; that was an example of how to state your argument clearly-enough to be easily understood and addressed. Separate out each of the premises, the axioms, and the conclusions:A1:
A2:
P1:
P2:
C1:
etc.This makes it easy to follow your argument and to reference key parts of it later on in discussion.Jon

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

You want me to present an argument against axiomatic "derived from nothing" conclusions on the basis of "derived from nothing" axioms?Are you serious?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

You won't like it because it isn't based on "derived from nothing" axioms. But here is the argument against your position.The argument that scientific conclusions are the result of logical deductions made from derived from nothing axioms is functionally equivalent to the argument that scientific conclusions are the result of deductions made from blind random guesses.This means that scientific conclusions themselves are functionally equivalent to blind random guesses.But science has demonstrated itself as being able to make conclusions which are demonstrably superior in terms of reliability to blind random guesses (e.g. the timings of eclipses)Thus scientific conclusions are not functionally equivalent to blind random guesses.Thus Jon’s view of scientific methodology is wrong.

It is true that you can make any inductive argument deductive by the use of arbitrary premises. This ultimately boils down to something stupid like:Premise 1: All known swans are white
Premise 2: Inductive logic leads to true conclusions.
Conclusion: All swans are whiteBut this doesn't undermine the argument that inductive logic is used in science. It just reasserts that deductive logic doesn't lead to conclusions that aren't contained in the premises that were chosen by the logician in question.Furthermore - if we agree that 'all inductive reasoning is deduction with unstated premises' then that still doesn't undermine the claim 'science uses inductive reasoning'. It means that it is equivalent to say that 'science uses deductive reasoning with unstated premises', not that the claim 'science does not use inductive reasoning' is true.

You can make anything be anything you want based on "arbitrary premises".Which is exactly why Jon's "derived from nothing" axiomatic approach is a recipe for stupidity.

You needn't present any axioms in your argument.JonEdited by Jon, : typsoe

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

I am not really arguing on the scientific induction debate. In as much as induction is deduction with unstated premises, I'd say Science makes extensive use of 'induction'. Science is a human institution. Humans understand things by relating them in terms they can comprehend. Even if the information in the conclusion is already in the premises (which I agree it must be), its restatement and/or summary into humanly-comprehensible terms is what is important. We don't do all this for the birds or the fishwe do Science for us; that we may comprehend; that we may understand. What will happen will be that your conclusion will rest on the willingness of the audience to accept P2. The more acceptable your premises/axioms, the more convincing your argument. Thus:A1: Anything yellow is square
P1: The Sun is yellow
C: The Sun is square...is valid, but only as convincing as the willingness of the audience to buy into A1. Combine this with the fact that this is a Science threadmeaning that we work off the axiom that empirical things are true, and all conclusions must be empirically falsifiableand the number and type of axioms we can utilize w/out contradiction becomes significantly limited. So, I see no problem explaining Science in completely deductive terms.Jon

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr