Induction and Science

"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

This is a getting be a really boring rhetorical ploy. It could as easily be said that you deny the evidence of induction. ID proponents also make lots of denials about the evidence for evolution.What would be evidence of induction in science? If generating a general law, and supporting it with particular evidence is not sufficient - what would this evidence look like so that we might try and meet your challenge.Without knowing what you are looking for - this thread is doomed to repeat itself over and over again. If we can criticise what you are looking for - or give it to you, maybe that would give us a fresh angle before a moderator decides 600 posts is more than enough to put our best positions forward.

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?

You think that your questions are bullshit?
Well, regardless, your questions have been asked and answered.My questions have been evaded. I repeat:
You claim that the definitions conflict? Well - as I have repeatedly asked - explain why. Stop making dumb assertions. I gave you 5 links - pick one of them.
If you are claiming that the definitions do not support my claim then - as I repeatedly ask - explain why. Stop making dumb assertions. Pythagorus' theorem is a mathematical proof - it is called a theorem for a reason.
But in science you have theories not theorems.
Clearly you don't understand the difference.
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it.
Remember: the thread subject is "Induction and Science". That means that you must have failed to understand the definition, as there is no reason for me to think that the explanation is wrong.
Or can you justify why I should disagree with an explanation that accurately expounds deductive reasoning?So, one more time:
Can you post a link to any web page that gives a definition of deductive reasoning that you [completely] agree with?Considering how mind-bogglingly easy it is to post a link - I am left with the unavoidable conclusion that there is no-one else that defines deductive reasoning the way you do.
It is as if you are arguing that cats can fly because you call the the feathered animals in your garden 'cats'.-----------------------Just as an extra note: Please address the points I raise. Else these replies will just get longer due to me having to repeat myself.
As an example: which meant I had to repeat myself.

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.

The origin is irrelevant, Straggler. No matter from where we get our axioms, premises, or whatever you'd like to call them, they must still be tested to the same rigor.This is, afterall, a Science thread.JonEdited by Jon, : you ↔ we

---

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

Huh? This is Science, Straggler. Are they not both subject to the same tests of falsification? Huh? This doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. Huh? We don't choose: everything must be tested before gaining acceptance. Huh? I'm sorry, but I don't recall ever advocating for such stupid behavior.JonEdited by Jon, : clarification...

---

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

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.

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.

What about the humour thread? The O.P. made me smile. Bluegenes' parody of the O.P.Premise: In the given particular example of inductive reasoning, the conclusion arrived at is absurd.Conclusion: Generally, inductive reasoning is absurd.Method used above: Inductive reasoning.

That really says it all!