Induction and Science

That may be what you believe. But you have failed to articulate a method by which it can be done.Edited by Stephen Push, : No reason given.

I'm not sure what you are trying to claim. Is it your position that the black swans of Australia are not in fact swans? Or are you saying that they did not become swans until Europeans named them? No. The evidence of induction is right there in black and white in the crow paper. Induction is such a routine part of science -- and life -- that you are not likely to find a paper in which the authors announce, "We are hereby using induction." (And if they did, I'm sure you wouldn't believe them.) There is no way to apply the results of a limited sample to the whole population without induction. It's true they allow that some other crows might behave differently, but they are definitely exptrapolating beyond the limited number of crows actually observed. That recquired inductive reasoning. While probabilites and statistics are based on deduction, their application to the natural and social sciences involves induction. In fact, there would be no need for statistical tests if researchers were making claims only about the individuals studied. The purpose of statistical analysis in science is to estimate the validity of applying data from a sample of individuals to the "universe" of all relevant individuals.

It is tautological to say that black swans were not "swans" until someone applied that name to them. But whatever people called them, black members of the genus Cygnus were living in Australia. And anyone familiar with the other members of the genus would immediately recognize them as a type of swan, with the notable exception that they have black plumage. The world is not required to conform to our beliefs.

I don't see anything wrong with that, as far as it goes. But science doesn't stop there. Science makes statements that can apply to unobserved phenomena.

Instrumentalism denies that science can make valid inferences about unobservable phenomena. The view you have been advocating in this thread would deny science the ability to make inferences about unobserved phenomena. There is a huge difference between these two positions.

It is implicit in the definition. The reason that instrumentalists believe that science does not describe objective reality is because they believe we cannot make valid inferences about unobservables.Although there are several versions of instrumentalism, I'm not aware of any that holds, as you do, that science does not use induction. As your own definition states, instrumentalism holds that science can explain and predict. It seems to me that extrapolation from actual abservations to as-yet-unobserved phenomena (i.e., induction) is essential for prediction.Thus I believe you are not even close to being an instrumentalist. Like an instrumentalist, you deny that science can describe objective reality. But unlike an instrumentalist, you also deny science the use of the only reasoning technique that enables prediction. By your standard, the only thing that science can do is explain the results of actual observations. But without the ability to test predictions, your version of science has no more epistemic authority than, say, history, which studies unrepeatable phenomena.Edited by Stephen Push, : No reason given.

What do you claim is false about my statement? Do you believe that some method other than inductive reasoning provides a basis for predicting unobserved phenomena? If so, what method?

I doubt you could show predictions using a Ouija board that would be better than chance. (The same could be said for the predictions that Jon pulls out of his ass.)Can you describe any method of making predictions that performs better than chance and does not require inference from the known to the unknown?Edited by Stephen Push, : No reason given.Edited by Stephen Push, : No reason given.

Now come on, Modulous. Why should nwr tell us what he is looking for when he's having so much fun being vague and elusive?Maybe a moderator should move this thread to "Faith and Belief," since nwr and Jon have placed their version of science on a par with Ouija boards and pulling ideas out of one's ass. Edited by Stephen Push, : No reason given.

That really says it all!

I agree with Straggler's response to your post. To put it in other words:Scientific predictions always assume general principles (e.g., the uniformity of nature) that can be derived by no method other than inductive reasoning.I am still waiting for you to describe a reasonable alternative to the method of scientific prediction we have been describing. If you have managed to accomplish what Newton and Hume -- and all scientists and philosophers since -- have not been able to accomplish, please share this invaluable discovery with the world.

Quotes below from an article from the long-term evolution experiment (LTEE) show how the researchers used induction.Specific observation: Generalized conclusion:

Wesley C. Salmon. Rational Prediction. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 32, No. 2 (June 1981), pp. 115-125.

You either do not understand what an argument from ignorance is or you have not been paying attention to our posts.From the Skeptic's Dictionary: Positive evidence has been presented here that scientists use induction. Perhaps you don't find the evidence compelling, but those of us defending the proposition that scientists use induction are not saying that the proposition is true only because it hasn't been proved false.

That's not how I read Straggler's statement. You have taken the position that his proposition is false. He is asking you for evidence to support your claim. A request for you to provide support for your position cannot be a logical fallacy.