Induction and Science

Instrumentalism as I know it is the view that the worth of a scientific theory is derived purely from it's ability to accurately predict the behaviour of nature.It is in thsi respect almost the complete oppoiste of the "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves" view that you have espoused.

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.

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.

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?

Jon - How is a "derived from nothing" premise different to a blind random guess?When are you going to answer this question? Your entire position in this thread (and indeed various others) rests on the use of axioms that you describe as "derived from nothing".If these are functionally equivalent to blind random guesses then you cannot just dismiss this with "who cares". At the very least you have invented the most foolishly inefficient method of deriving knowledge possible. Are you stupid? How many times need I say that the entire reason your "derived from nothing" axiom argument is so pointlessly imbecilic is exactly because you can deduce absolutely anything that takes your fancy by plucking arbitrary axioms from your arse (just as Bill could - remember him? Message 211). But nobody actually came to the conclusion under discussion through "derived from nothing" axioms. And scientific conclusions are certainly not made in this manner.You have even conceded that your "derived from nothing" axiomatic starting point of your little deductive exercise is in fact derived from experience. Have you ever woken up to observe the world in a state that is inconsistent with it functioning as observed while you were not observing it? Have you (for example) ever awoken to find that the world appeared to have been on pause during your period of non-observance? No. From this you have inductively concluded that you never will.The question is why do you want to take this inductive conclusion and re-brand it as a "derived from nothing" axiom when it blatantly is no such thing? Every shred of experience I have indicates that the world continues to function as is whether I am actively observing it or not. To make the generalised conclusion that this will always be the case based on this limited information is indisputably an inductive conclusion.Which part of this are you not understanding? How could it possibly be made clearer to you?

Is science is able to make reliable and accurate (albeit tentative) conclusions about the future behaviour of natural phenomena?This would seem to be a very simple question. Why can you not give a straight answer to it? Until you can give a description of science that deals with the fact that science does make conclusions about the future behaviour of natural phenomena without these conclusions necessarily being inductively derived from past behaviour - You have no point and your non-inductive science position has been refuted.Edited by Straggler, : Phenomena not phenomenon.

Jon if you are in so much agreement with Modulous can you tell me what I have said that is significantly different to that which you are agreeing with?

You started this entire conversation with the assertion that All conclusions are arrived at deductively. You then went on to (repeatedly) assert that the starting point for these deductions are axioms which are (I quote) derived from nothing.To be derived from nothing is functionally equivalent to being derived from blind random guesses. This is not how scientific conclusions are derived. Nor is it how any of the example axioms you have provided (e.g. regarding unobserved phenomena) were arrived at either.This has been demonstrated to you both by myself and (more successfully) Modulous.

And it is those that I am asking you about.Is science able to make reliable and accurate (albeit tentative) conclusions about the future behaviour of natural phenomenon?Stop evading the question. And if you are going to falsely claim to have already answered the above question please provide the answer previously given along with the message link to where you previously answered it.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

No you haven't. You have changed the question and skirted around it continuously. But you have never answered it.Either provide the answer or admit that you cannot.

Do you still stand by this claim?You started this entire conversation with the assertion that All conclusions are arrived at deductively. You then went on to (repeatedly) assert that the starting point for these deductions are axioms which are (I quote) derived from nothing.To be derived from nothing is functionally equivalent to being derived from blind random guesses. This is not how scientific conclusions are derived. Nor is it how any of the example axioms you have provided (e.g. regarding unobserved phenomena) were arrived at either.This has been demonstrated to you both by myself and (more successfully) Modulous. Science doesn't start from "axioms" that are "derived from nothing".Do you dispute this?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I have honestly never seen you give a detailed position on anything. I don't even think you are capable of it.But if you provide a link to the specific post in which you give this once-in-a-lifetime rarity I will of course be delighted to comment. The novelty factor alone will make this worthwhile.And while you are at it perhaps you could spell out (even if in a quote from a previous post) your answer to the question that you seem unable to give a straight answer to: Is science able to make reliable and accurate (albeit tentative) conclusions about the future behaviour of natural phenomena?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.