Induction and Science

There is never certainty about the future.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

You agree with the definition but disagree with the explanation of the definition?
Could you maybe post some links that give an explanation that you do agree with? I provided several links.
They all concur with my definition.So, do you have no links to any site advocating your definition then?
I did previously ask for links.
So far you have given me one link and then disagreed with it.
Does nowhere else on the internet agree with your defintion of deductive reasoning?

That's why I only said my view was similar, because I certainly don't agree with it as stated that way.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

Great. In the first of the links you provided, I find this: That sure seems to contradict what you have been claiming.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

Do a search for the word "tentative" and specify my name and you will see this term used in numerous threads including all of the ones we have recently partaken in. Can't answer the question without contradicting yourself huh? That is why I keep asking it. Oh so you have been persuaded by my argument that rather than premises plucked from nowhere you are actually deriving the starting points of your deductions from inductive conclusions based on experience. Well done Jon there is hope for you yet. Why do you think this is the case? See Message 461So you continue to assert that your "axiom" that nature will continue to operate when unobserved as it does when observed is "derived from nothing" - Functionally equivalent to a blind random guess rather than derived inductively from the totality of your experience? It is just astonishing coincidence that your experience and everyone elses experience matches this "derived from nothing" axiom of yours perfectly? Just a blind stab in the dark then?

Do you consider any scientific conclusions to be ones of certainty?Is science is able to make reliable and accurate (albeit tentative) conclusions about the future behaviour of natural phenomenon?Stop evading the question.

So in response to a specific question you simply cite a broad philosophical position and then it turns out you don't really agree with most of that either?Do you see why such response are a complete waste of fucking time? They are just evasive and ambiguous.

I see no contradiction - it agrees with what I said.
If you think there is a contradiction then please point it out.So, no links to any sites that agree with your definition?
Not one?

Well, I'm not sure whether or not Science really uses induction; my argument has not really been to that matter. In as far as it is a human institution, it may well do just that. My original claim, though, was that all induction can be closedturned into deductionby adding certain premises. This was the essence of the ongoing debate between Straggler and myself. If any induction can be turned into a deduction, then this is true of any induction, including your 'inductively based premises'. I'll agree with the following:There is no induction that cannot be made into a deduction.Does that work for you? Is not such an assumption an implication in any inductive argument? We could add a 'deduction works' to any deductive argument. In both cases I think it would be superfluous. Thus, I am not sure this 'induction works' can really work as a premise to close an inductive argument and make it deductive.But whether such an assumption is proper or not, it will still be just a displaced implication. Its bearing on the conclusion will not change wherever we move it. Furthermore, all other implications (including any others I might choose to close the argument) will also still exist and bear down on the conclusion. Whichever of the many implications you pick to turn into an assumption, it will not change anything but the names we give to the various parts of our argument. That 'all stuff behaved the same' is an implication of his conclusions. Whether you set it as an implication or an assumptive premise, it exists nonetheless. It will still bear down on the probable actual truth of our conclusion. So, I'm not sure it matters where we put it. Actually, I am beginning to wonder whether measuring the inductive leap is even necessary. The only difference between an inductive argument and deductive argument is the presence of certain premises. Interestingly, the content of these premises will be contained in the implications of any inductive conclusion, and their values covered as part of the set of implications. Thus, it seems necessary only to measure all the premises, assumptions, and implications. Where you put any of them doesn't seem to matter; their bearing on the conclusion should be the same wherever they end up.So, I doubt the inductive leap has any actual value at all. Since its value is represented already by any number of implications, why even bother with it? Perhaps this is why I am not convinced of the propriety of your 'induction works' assumption above; by offering no value, I wonder how it serves to do anything at all... On the superficial level, the inductive leap certainly seems a necessary first step. But I wonder whether or not this is true on the deeper reasoning level. I'd hazard a guess, not that this is the place for such a thing, that all human thought is ultimately deductive. For example, a child learning to speak makes assumptions about how he will be understood; whether he is or is not understood determines how he will alter his deductive premises. Our deductive assumptions may be so deep and integral that we might not realize they are therethey'd be hard to find for sure. A thread on this might prove fascinating! Interesting. If it is that Science regularly expresses the implications of this leap, then that is great! I admit I do not read many science journals. I suppose you wouldn't be willing to point me to one in which the inductive leap has been spelled out in order to make the conclusion easier to falsify?Jon

---

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

No Jon - Let me remind you of what I have said:Straggler said: "That's the problem with axiomatic deduction of the silly sort you are advocating. You can pick your axioms and deduce whatever you want to." Message 302Also: Message 260OK. Well the fact that you have yet to cite these missing premises suggests that you have failed your own challenge on your own terms.But more to the point is the fact that even if you pluck some "derived from nothing" premises out of your arse the idea that you have randomly hit upon the same conclusion that the rest of us have inductively is just nonsense.Jon - How is a premise "derived from nothing" different to a blind random guess?You have never answered this question.

quote:

---

Jon in Message 521 (emphasis added):

​

I guess I didn't see it in that post, Straggler.

---

I asked for reference to the message to which I had previously replied. You tell me to check the thread. I take it you never mentioned 'tentativity' in that message, as I suspected. You also quote mined my request, which made it clear I was asking for a reference to the specific message. So, instead of misrepresenting me, why not provide me with an inductive argument that cannot be made deductive? The question's been answered a thousand times, Straggler. You've never shown where there was a contradiction with the answer. Stop misrepresenting me. And, this is still not an inductive argument that cannot be made deductive. Because Science favors that which leads to accurate predictions. Thus, 'opinions' and 'guesses' that do this will become part of Science. But, how does this provide an inductive argument that cannot be made deductive? Persuaded from what? I never held the position you accuse me of having held. Stop misrepresenting me. And where is your inductive argument that cannot be made deductive? That's quite funny, because none of this is a reply to my request that you provide even one inductive argument that cannot be made deductive. By quoting repeated instances of me defining, accurately, the word 'axiom', what did you hope to accomplish? All you have done in this post is misrepresented me several times and failed to provide an inductive argument that cannot be made deductive.You'll have to try again, I'm afraid.Jon Edited by Jon, : unsize

---

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

You need to read in full the discussion between Modulous and myself. You will see that what you consider to be 'derived from nothing' premises are, nevertheless, present in even your best 'inductive' argument.Straggler also said: "Your little logic exercise is itself derived from inductive reasoning." Message 243Why not just supply me with the inductive argument, then, if you believe it cannot be made deductive? You've been asked so many times, why continue dancing around the matter?JonEdited by Jon, : No reason given.Edited by Jon, : Finished edit...

---

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

I never mentioned "certainty" either yet you erroneously started ranting on about that. Am I supposed to second guess your ever more bewildered misunderstandings? Then you shouldn't have any trouble finding the answer should you? So you agree that the starting point of your little logic exercise is not "derived from nothing" as repeatedly asserted by you but instead derived inductively from experience.Finally. You can falsely make anything deductive by ramming in whatever stupid premises are required to result in the conclusion you want to reach as I have repeatedly said.But this is not in practise how we come to conclusions - As it seems I have successfully argued.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Jon - How is a "derived from nothing" premise different to a blind random guess? I have. And it concludes with exactly what I have been saying to you all along. The starting point of your deductive logic exercise is not a "derived from nothing" axiom as you keep relentlessly asserting but instread inductively derived from expereince. Can you give me an example of one of these premises that is "derived from nothing" rather than experience? You can falsely make anything deductive with the placement of arbitrary premises you bewildered dimwit. How many more times need I say this? That was the whole point of the Bill example. I have answered it so many times why keep asking. Let's take this step by step shall we?Is your "derived from nothing axiom" that unobserved phenomenon will always behave in the same way as observed phenomenon consistent with your experience of the world?When you wake up does the world seem to have carried on as was without you or not?

Then get on topic. If you want to discuss science and induction then read my previous posts and let me know what you think within the context of the topic. I don't see any merit continuing to discuss how science uses induction with somebody, have them disagree with me, and then when their disagreements are addressed, have them turn round and tell me they weren't discussing induction within science. My counter claim is that in science, that induction will still be used, even if it is enclosed as a premise in a deductive argument. You've continuously demonstrated this with your examples - most notably was your D-Newton who explicitly used induction. The challenge for a falsifying counter-example remains open.I have never disagreed that you could turn an inductive argument into a deductive one by adding premises that meant the conclusion was necessary. I have continuously agreed with this. But in science, when we're talking about general laws and the like, the premises that you are going to be adding have that inductive quality to them, each time.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.