Induction and Science

No. You should take it as a challenge to show how the followng is not logically or evidentially valid:"You cannot make scientific predictions (or conclusions pertaining to future events) without first inductively concluding that nature will continue to operate as it has been observed to behave thus far."Unless based on the past behaviour of nature what do you suggest we base such predictions on? Jon's plucked from arse "axioms"?Inductive reasoning works Nwr. It is unavoidable. Call it illogical if you want. But without it you remain wedded to a form of "science" that is incapable of even telling us what my soon to be dropped pen will do when released. A form of science that exists nowhere but in your head.

I agree with Straggler's response to your post. To put it in other words:Scientific predictions always assume general principles (e.g., the uniformity of nature) that can be derived by no method other than inductive reasoning.I am still waiting for you to describe a reasonable alternative to the method of scientific prediction we have been describing. If you have managed to accomplish what Newton and Hume -- and all scientists and philosophers since -- have not been able to accomplish, please share this invaluable discovery with the world.

'Clearly refutes' is an unusual term - there are certainly papers in the scientific literature that disagree with Popper such as International Journal of Epidemiology 1998:27:543-548
Induction versus Popper: substance versus semantics, Sander Greenland, but clearly refuting something like Popper's opinions? Surely that would come down to a matter of opinion in its own right? The cited paper gives some perceived problems and areas of agreement with Popper, and that's all you are likely to get from an honest writer.But your former challenge is empty of content. I asked you, in a number of ways

quote:

---

What would induction in science look like

---

And your response is to take part of my formulation of my challenge 'What would be evidence of induction in science?' and try to answer that literally.But my overall question, the point of the words I wrote was to try to get you to tell me what would a clear use of induction look like? I have pointed at examples in peer reviewed work and you deny it is induction. So what would it look like so that I might try and find it in the literature.

Huh? Whether it is or isn't, why does it matter? Isn't it all still tested? We don't judge on reliability until things are tested. So, why does it matter? Oh? And how do they differ from mine?Jon

---

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

But is it not a particular theorem that was derived from more general principles of geometry?

It was your link.
You don't agree with what it says.
I see no reason to justify what it says when you are the one that posted it. Yes.
But the webpage disagreed with your definition of deductive reasoning.
Which is why I asked you to provide a link that you actually agreed with.But you are correct: "There's no point in your repeated demands."
Repeatedly asking you for something that you haven't got (and seems to not exist) isn't going to produce results.Face it: it is not everyone else that is wrong.
It is just you.p.s.
It is good to see that you acknowledge that your comment regarding Pythagoras' Theorem was both incorrect and off-topic.
Apology accepted.

If it is derived from particular examples, then it already has appealed to these particular examples to gain acceptance. If it is derived from nothing (e.g., made up from a dream), then it will have to appeal to particular examples to gain acceptance.Either way, it is certain that we cannot get around the appeal to particular examples if we are to do Science. Science operates off of information from the empirical world, and without the luxury of examining everything, we are stuck with limited amounts of this information.Jon

---

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

And if it is derived from the general principles of geometry then it does not serve as a falsifying example of the idea that deduction is deriving particulars from generals. I know, I've been arguing this for some time now, I'm glad to see you agree with this. That's why I think induction is central to science. What has this to do with the derivation of Pythagoras' Theorem?

Quotes below from an article from the long-term evolution experiment (LTEE) show how the researchers used induction.Specific observation: Generalized conclusion:

Wesley C. Salmon. Rational Prediction. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 32, No. 2 (June 1981), pp. 115-125.

I realise that the link was not aimed directly at me, but thank you.
It was a very interesting read.
(I quite like how Mr. Salmon writes too.)

So if a deductively derived conclusion fails a falsification test and is thus falsified you assume that it will fail that same test everytime it is taken?So actually through falsification you are once again invoking inductive reasoning. Which once again rather poo poos you silly assertion that "There is, of course, no such thing as 'induction'. All conclusions are arrived at deductively" Message 178Inductive reasoning is unavoidable in science Jon. As I have told you previoulsy the best that can be said of your method is that it is the most desperately inefficient method of determining the starting point of scientific investigation.You might as well use a random axiom generator.

Sanity from Jon? Has the world stopped spinning?

I'm really confused, Straggler. It appears that you have no idea what my argument is. Again, I think you are looking for disagreement where there needn't be any. I don't think I have ever made a statement about which of any 'methods' are more or less efficient.Jon

---

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

If you admit that this is a sane argument, then what reason is there for your continued debating against my position in this thread other than your severe misunderstanding of my arguments?Perhaps if you find yourself in agreement with this statement, then it is time to set aside the nitpicking and call it a day.Jon

---

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