Induction and Science

It is not implicit in the part that I quoted.I'll readily grant that I have studied the literature on instrumentalism. You could be right. But I do not deny that. I deny only that a scientific theory is a description. That is just nonsense that you are making up.Edited by nwr, : misattribution

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

Sigh!Are we still on that bullshit. The reply you gave to that "by definition" claim did not support the claim. Moreover, the claim is obviously false, as shown in the last line of Message 502. Giving several links is worthless. Just give one link with a definition that actually supports your claim (if there is one). The definitions I saw in your links did not support your claim. The Pythagorus theorem is still a general principle that is derived by deductive reasoning. Quite so. But the definition is fine, even if the explanation is defective.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

People make predictions using a Ouja board. You can, of course, make better predictions with science, but that does not require induction.Here is the scoreboard thus far, as best I can tell:Actual evidence of induction being used by science: zero.
Valid arguments supporting induction: zero.
Invalid arguments supporting induction: many - I didn't try counting them.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

What you presumably mean, is that I have never answered it to your satisfaction. However, I have answered it.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

Message 480Edited by nwr, : correct wrong quote

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

"Better" means a higher probability of being near correct.Science does better because it use far more information, more in quantity in quality, when making its predictions. You switch from "prediction" to "conclusion". You assert that is evidence of induction. ID proponents also make lots of assertions about evidence for ID.So, sure, you are right up there on a par with the ID creationists in your use of evidence. That is to say, you have not provided any. "Valid" refers to an actual logic derivation that begins with clearly stated premises, and follows the accepted rules of logical deduction.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

Oops!I accidentally quoted the wrong text. My reply was intended to respond to a different part of your message. (I have since edited that earlier post).

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

Oops again. My reply to Message 569 was intended to be a reply to Message 570.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

No. Or, as people sometimes express it, shit happens.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

I don't think I have suggested that. Rather, I have said that what you claimed to be true by definition, isn't. Are you denying that the Pythagorus result holds for ordinary physical triangles?

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

I'm not sure what's your point here. Any prediction is about the unknown.Induction is supposedly the deriving of a general statement from specific statements. A prediction is not a general statement.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

The "conclusion" sometimes turns out to be wrong, showing that the "accurately" requirement is not met. It is clearly not indisputable. It has been disputed.Back in Message 509 you implied that I am anti-Popper, which I am not. You also implied that I am postmodern, which I am not. You seem to be jumping to conclusions not based on evidence.Here's a quote from the Stanford Encyclopedia entry on Popper

quote:

---

Popper is unusual amongst contemporary philosophers in that he accepts the validity of the Humean critique of induction, and indeed, goes beyond it in arguing that induction is never actually used by the scientist. However, he does not concede that this entails the scepticism which is associated with Hume, and argues that the Baconian/Newtonian insistence on the primacy of ‘pure’ observation, as the initial step in the formation of theories, is completely misguided: all observation is selective and theory-ladenthere are no pure or theory-free observations. In this way he destabilises the traditional view that science can be distinguished from non-science on the basis of its inductive methodology; in contradistinction to this, Popper holds that there is no unique methodology specific to science.

---

It seems that I am in agreement with a lot of what Popper says.If there is good evidence that induction is actually used by science, then there should be a peer reviewed scholarly article that thoroughly refutes Popper. Perhaps you can provide a citation.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

Something peer reviewed that clearly uses induction.I made a suggestion in Message 600 on what you might look for.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

I am providing a counter example to an absurd claim made by Panda.Do pay attention.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

Bullshit.However, I do suggest you try to construct a clear valid logical argument supporting your bare assertion.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie