Induction and Science

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

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

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

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.

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.

Can you be more specific about these constraints? What is an example of a scientific axiom and what is an example of a non-scientific axiom? I have asked lots. But I have asked this one repeatedly. You have yet to answer it.Jon — How is an assumption derived from nothing different to a blind random guess?

Doing calculations that pertain to future events (e.g. landing the rocket before you actually land it) indisputably rely on nature (i.e. gravity and suchlike) actually operating in accordance with previous observations and complying with thos calculations.The conclusion that nature will behave at some point in the future as it has been observed to behave thus far is based on inductive reasoning.How cannit possibly be otherwise?

If our scientific theories "have nothing to say about how nature behaves" how can our scientific theories tell us (tentatively) what is physically possible or impossible?Indeed how can they tell us anything that allows us to manipulate nature in the ways that we indisputably do?On what principles do you think your computer was constructed? Ones that tell us nothing about nature?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

So you continue to deny the existence of universal scientific principles or the ability of science to draw conclusions about the future behaviour of the world on the basis of these principles?Newton’s universal law of gravitation has already been discussed (the name is the clue here). Conservation of energy. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. The second law of thermodynamics. All are examples of scientific principles which are considered by science to accurately describe the behaviour of nature universally. Not just here and now. Not just that which has been observed. But (tentatively) that which will be observed and even those things unobserved. Induction.I am holding my pen in the air. I am going to let go. What is the scientific conclusion regarding the actual bahaviour of my pen that will be observed when I let it go? You have invented a form of "science" that is unable to comment on what it is that a pen will do when dropped. Go figure. I object to you equating the demonstrably reliable conclusions of science to "guesses" and "opinions" because they are demonstrably superior in terms of reliability to guesses and opinions. E.g. the timings of eclipses or the behaviour of as yet undropped pens. Then you can't read. You have (at best) loosely described how it is that science works as an explanatory framework for already known observations.Your view of science (like so many others we are confronted with here at EvC) is utterly unable to account for the fact that science does not only explain. It also enables us to accurately predict the behaviour of nature. Certainly a position that asserts "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves" is not going to be able to explain how it is that science does constantly tell us how nature almost certainly will behave from one moment to the next.Until you can account for the ability of science to do that without invoking induction to conclude that nature will continue to operate in a way that is consistent with the way it has been observed to behave thus far - You have no position.

Whether the calculations actually manage to physically land the rocket or not is utterly dependent on reality operating in accordance with those calculations. The calculations could be done perfectly but if they don't describe nature to a decent extent the rocket landing will fail.Why would we possibly expect nature to operate in accordance with our calculations unless we are inductively concluding that nature will continue to behave as it has been observed to behaves thus far?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Yes you have. You said "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves". You have also described scientific conclusions regarding the timing of future eclipses as "guesses" and "opinions".If you have changed your mind on that just say so and then explain how a scientific theory can accurately predict the behaviour of nature without first concluding that nature will behave as observed to behave thus far.I predict that you will not be able to without invoking inductive reasoning But instrumentalism doesn't answer the question I asked you. When making predictions why would we possibly expect nature to operate in accordance with our theories unless we are inductively concluding that nature will continue to behave as it has been observed to behaves thus far? It would aid everyones understanding if you both stopped contradicting yourself and didn't rely on irrelevant broad philosophic terms as answers to specific questions."I am a post-modern anti-Popperian instrumentalist with constructivism tendencies" is a parody of the sort of meaningless philoso-babble answers you repeatedly give.Cut the horseshit and answer the questions.

I am holding my pen in the air. I am going to let go. What is the scientific conclusion regarding the actual bahaviour of my pen that will be observed when I let it go? It is possible that even blind random chance will sometimes hit upon the correct answer. But I would suggest that your chances of accurately guessing when the next eclipse will occur are not good.Scientific conclusions are not baseless guesses or opinions which are derived from nothing as you have asserted throughout this thread. Scientific conclusions are demonstrably superior in terms of reliability to guesses and opinions. This Jon is why we practise science rather than just sit on the beach pontificating as to the nature of reality and plucking axioms out of our arses so that we can derive whatever conclusions take our fancy. Then you are a idiot. Have you missed my (and everyone else’s) repeated us of the word tentative? Inductively I tentatively conclude that nature will continue to operate as it has been observed to operate thus far. Science would be simply unable to function without this inductively derived conclusion. Oh the irony

Constantly.But I have to wile away the long winter evenings somehow.....

Back to your vagueties again I see.So have you decided yet whether or not science is able to reliably and accurately make conclusions about the future behaviour of natural phenomenon?