Induction and Science

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.Can science tell us what effect dehydration would have on your body? Yes it can. But not without inductive reasoning being innately required.

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.

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.

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?

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"?

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.

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?

Can you explain how your latest stance regarding the inevitable role of inductive reasoning in science is compatible with this:

If I put a piece of potassium in a glass of water what does science tell us will happen? As long as your description of science denies the ability of science to make highly accurate and reliable (albeit tentative) conclusions about the future behaviour of natural phenomena your argument remains entirely refuted. Because science indisputably can and does do this. You have presented no alternative. All you have done is deny the ability of science to do the things science is demonstrably very adept at. Dismissed by you as "guesses" and " opinions". Because your false pet theory cannot allow such conclusions to be anything else. No matter how inappropriate these descriptions are given the phenomenonal (albeit imperfect) reliability and accuracy that science can and does achieve. Your hypothesis that science is unable to reliably and accurately (albeit tentatively) make conclusions about things which have not yet occurred based on the principles derived from what has gone before has been critically tested. And it has failed. Science can and does do this.If there is some entirely non-inductive explanation for the ability of science to do what it so undeniably successfully does then neither you nor anyone else has yet presented it.

Then I suggest that you read what has been written by those including yourself.

So (from this thread alone) you are a realist, instrumentalist Popperian who doesn't think that scientific theories are descriptions of reality, who does not rate falsification as particularly important and who advocates a form of science that is unable to draw reliable and accurate (albeit tentative) conclusions about something as simple as the physical behaviour of my soon to be dropped pen. Nwr: "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves".Can you not see what a confused muddle that is? Nevermind being entirely divorced from anything that actually goes by the name of science.

Can you give a example of any universal principle in science which is not a "best guess" by the terms of this argument?E.g. the second law of thermodynamics. All it would take is one example of a genuine perpetual motion machine and the universal laws of thermodynamics would be falsified.Are the laws of thermodynaics "best guesses"?

Deduce?IF some THEN all.Surely this is inductive? How is this not exactly what you are doing?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.