Induction and Science

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

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? I accept your inability to comply with my repeated request to provide a link as your tacit agreement that you are the only person in the known world that defines 'deductive reasoning' in the way that you do.
You need to realise that when you are at the stage when you think "It is not me that is wrong! It is everyone else that is wrong!" - then it is definitely you that is wrong. You asked for links to definitions - I gave links.
You don't like the links? Then explain what is wrong with them. Be specific. No. I am telling you that you are bringing in an off-topic subject.
I repeat: there is a difference between a theorem and a theory.
Learn what it is and then get back on-topic.

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

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

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

I think you will find that this is true of ALL scientific conclusions and not just those that pertain to specific future events such as my soon to be dropped pen.The fact remains that you have invented a form of "science" that is incapable of commenting on the physical behaviour of a soon to be dropped pen beyond "guesses" and "opinions". This makes you look ridiculous.Apart from anything else your version of "science" invalidates half the questions in any science textbook because they ask what will happen in a given set of circumstances. The answer "It depends if nature is behaving the same today as it did yesterday" isn't going to get you many marks.You remain refuted. Popper never managed to totally eradicate induction from science. The whole idea of falsification relies on that which has been falsified failing the same tests if repeated. In other words it relies on the inductive conclusion that nature will behave in the future in a manner that is consistent with past behaviour.It is also inductive to think that if a theory has survived prior falsification attempts it will necessarily be better placed to survive future falsification attempts.But you apparently think you have succeeded where Popper failed. You are wrong.

The explanation cannot be deduced from the definition. However, if you would like to try, I would be interested in seeing that. I gave you a link the first time. There's no point in your repeated demands.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

Charming.If nature has only ever been observed to behave in a certain way it is inductive to conclude that it always will. Universal principles (such as the laws of thermodynaics) dictate conclusions about the future behaviour of nature because they are considered to always apply.That is what universal means Nwr. Do keep up.

Yes because nature likes to chanfge its laws remember the time when gravity started to repel matter insted of atracting it damm that was a tough decade. Or the time when the Second law of thermodynamics "Heat cannot spontaneously flow from a colder location to a hotter location." got changed so bad it actualy had something to do whit evolution.

That's the claim of some of Popper's critics.I'm still waiting for the citation to a peer reviewed scholarly article that decisively demonstrates that Popper was wrong about induction. The evidence does not support Popper's falsification thesis.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

Panda hasn't made an "absurd claim". He has provided a defintion of deductive reasoning. Something you have failed to do as far as I can see.How does the fact that Pythagoras theorem can be deduced and proven from mathematical axioms through deductive logic not entirely support everything Panda is saying about the nature of deductive reasoning?

I see that you omitted quoting this part: Should I take that as an admission that you are unable to provide such an argument?

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

Just go back and read the whole discussion.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

Popper was essentially a realist. You have said "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves". Popper's entire thesis rested on falsification. You deny any significant role for falsification in science.As usual you have vaguely mentioned a philosophical position that you think supports your stance and will then be forced to retract from any of the concrete positions that philosophical stance demands.Just as you did when you described yourself as an instrumentalist who didn't believe in prediction as majorly significant (the key criteria by which instramentalism demands that theory be measured) .Why do you keep doing this?Anyway - You are still advocating a form of "science" that cannot make a conclusion about the physical behaviour of my soon to be dropped pen. A form of "science" that doesn't exist anywhere but inside your own head.You remain refuted on the grounds that your description of science doesn't match the actualities of science. A complaint often made against Popper. Pick practically any paper you want. For example a paper that states that gene X is responsible for trait Y. Nobody has examined every single instance of gene X have they? Yet the conclusion of the paper is that ownership of gene X will result in trait Y generally. Induction.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I have. Which part specifically are you objecting to or calling "absurd"?