Induction and Science

Whilst your arguments in this thread (and numerous others) adequately demonstrate your ability and propensity for pulling things "from one's ass" can you give a specific example of where this led to a successful outcome? (a "gem" in your parlance).

Well the first are functionally equivalent to blind random guesses and the second are derived from expereience and are evidentially superior. Which part of that are you disputing? So now you are equivocating on your initial claim that "There is, of course, no such thing as 'induction'. All conclusions are arrived at deductively" Message 178Indeed. But how do we choose what to test? The LHC wasn't built on a whim was it? Jon says "Let there be the Higgs Boson" therefore we will spend billions on researching Jon's "derived from nothing" axiom.Get real.

Astrologists make predictions. So do wichdoctors. In fact anyone can make predictions. What is your point? What do you mean by "better" and how do you explain the ability of science to make "better" predictions? Is science able to make reliable and accurate (albeit tentative) conclusions about the future behaviour of natural phenomena?Ahem - Universal principles upon which the behaviour of my soon to be dropped pen can be scientifically derived. Define "valid" and "invalid".Be specific.

Where? Link to the answer to the question asked.Why can you not even quote, and link to, the answer you say you have given?I will tell you why - Because you cannot reconcile the fact that genuinely scientific conclusions are made regarding as yet unobserved specific instances of natural phenomena without the inductive conclusion that nature will behave as thus far observed being included.Show us otherwise. I challenge you.

So where in this post can I find your answer to the question:Is science able to make reliable and accurate (albeit tentative) conclusions about the future behaviour of natural phenomena?

You make a false distinction in sooooooo many cases.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 in which the simple behaviour of an as yet undropped pen is a "guess" or an "opinion".Can science tell us that a particular boat design will sink or float? Can science tell us how much fuel is needed to put a rocket into Earth's orbit? Can science tell us whether or not a given embryo will result in a child that will suffer from down's syndrome? Can science tell us what will happen to your body if you are starved of food?Can science reliably and accurately make conclusions about things which have not yet occurred based on the principles derived from what has gone before? The answer is indisputably - Yes.Yet your non-inductive science has no answer to this fact. You are advocting a form of non-inductive science which does not and cannot exist given the realities of science as practised by real scientists.

Just give a single clear and unequivocal answer to the following:Is science able to make reliable and accurate (albeit tentative) conclusions about the future behaviour of natural phenomena?

Then why the fuck have you spent an entire thread falsely asserting that the origins of all scientific theories are "axioms" which are "derived from nothing"? OK. Let's pretend that your idiotic method of starting scientific investigation is a reality. Let's pretend that the laws of thermodynaics were derived using a random word generator.We test the laws of thermodynamics rigorously and come to the (tentative) conclusion that these are universal principles which apply in ALL cases and which make the existence of a perpetual motion machine an impossibility.Regardless of origins, inductive reasoning is still required to arrive at general or universal conclusions from necessarily limited evidence. Thus inductive reasoning is necessarily still a part of science and Nwr's little pet project remains refuted. Oh you had noticed.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Well I am quoting you from Message 178It seems that you have come to the same conclusion as the rest of us Jon - Namely that you don't make any sense. See post above. How is an axiom "derived from nothing" of the sort you have been advocating all thread different to a blind random guess? You never did respond to Message 461Then you had better get started. I hear that there are a whole raft of perpetual motion machine designs that have not yet actually been built and tested. Enough to keep you perpetually occupied and out of harms way at least.I mean we can't trust those silly laws of thermodynamics without testing every possible case can we? After all "everything must be tested before gaining acceptance". Have fun.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

How is an axiom "derived from nothing" of the sort you have been advocating all thread different to a blind random guess? So (according to you) all conclusions are the result of deductions from what are effectively blind random guesses. Then what does your axiomatic nonsense have to do with the topic at hand? Anyway I thought your assertions applied to "All conclusions"? So you inductively conclude that you are still not? I think you should check again. If you can fit it in around your busy schedule as you eternally investigate every potential perpetual motion machine conceivable.It must be fun being you.

How is an axiom "derived from nothing" of the sort you have been advocating all thread different to a blind random guess? If your deduced conclusions are derived from "axioms" which are functionally equivalent to blind random guesses then why would your conclusions (no matter how logically valid) be superior to blind random guesses? I could say that to your entire last post.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

The fact that you are incapable of recognising the logical consequences of your own position is neither here nor there.I put it to you that the conclusions deduced from "axioms" which are "derived from nothing" are functionally equivalent to blind random guesses. How could it be otherwise? If conclusions are no more reliable or accurate than blind random guesses then yes it matters. Fortunately most of us have recognised the need for better methods.

Just seen this:

If I put a piece of potassium in a glass of water what does science tell us will happen? Yet science does do this.Your non-inductive description of science spectacularly fails to deal with the indisputable fact that science as practised by real scientists makes inductive conclusions about the way nature will behave in specific as yet unobserved circumstances.Until you can describe science in a way that does not necessitate such conclusions as being "guesses" or "opinions" you remain entirely refuted on this very crucial point regarding the inductive nature of science.

Pythagoras theorem is a general theorem that appies to ALL right angle triangles. The proof of Pythagoras theorem proves that Pythagoras theorem applies to ALL right angle triangles. "Physical triangles" - Will have imperfect right angles. So yes Pythagoras theorem will apply but imperfectly.It holds for ALL right angle triangles. That is what Pythagoras theorem states. That is what has been deductively proven.What is your point? That a general mathematical conjecture has been proved to apply in all cases? What has this got to do with induction and science?