Induction and Science

Then you haven't deduced anything. You have simply gone in a circle and ended up back where you started. I.e. with your observation that all thus far observed instanced of A are B. It would be a very crap hypothesis if it wasn'y even in accordance with the evidence from which is was founded wouldn't it? Our inductive "guesses" reliably (but tentativley - i.e. without absolute certainty) tell us that the laws of thermodynamics are universal and that perpetual motion machines are impossible.Do you really think this is a guess?

And if it isn't falsified after a great deal of testing? Can we at any point inductively (but tentativley) conclude that all A is B with confidence?For example can we confidently (but tentatively) conclude that there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine? It was you that used the phrase "inductive guess". The question is do you understand that universal principles and scientific conclusions (such as that ALL species on Earth are derived from a common ancestor) no matter how well tested are necessarily inductive to some degree? Do you disagree with the above?AbE - I think that your position on inductive reasoning (whether you yet realise it or not) lies at the heart of Mod's accusation that by the terms of your argument "Science is pseudoskeptical" Message 498Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Excellent.So do you agree that scientific theories, even the most highly tested of theories, which make universal or general statements are tentative conclusions derived (at least in part) from inductive reasoning as opposed to statements of logical certitude?Do you agree that high confidence yet tentative and falsifiable theories can be derived by incorporating such methods into one's investigations and resulting conclusions?Conclusions like that being discussed in the bluegenes Challenge (bluegenes and RAZD only)Great Debate[/bgcolor] the bluegenes Challenge

If I put a piece of potassium in a glass of water what does science tell us will happen? I refer you to Message 642. You remain refuted. You have presented nothing that is able to explain the fact that science can and does make reliable and accurate (albeit tentative) conclusions about specific as yet unobserved events without invoking induction in the form of basing such conclusions on the uniformity of nature and past observations. That you think you have succeeded where Popper and numerous other philosophers of significance have failed is laughable.So Nwr what broad and meaningless philosophical label are you going to apply to yourself today? Before rapidly backtracking on anything concrete that this position will imply. As per your usual tactic of vagueness, ambiguity, vacuousness and general pseudo-intellectual philos-obabble.

Your false description of science makes it impossible for science to answer this question beyond "guessing" or "opinion". Yet you will find the answer to this question clearly stated in any school level chemistry text book.So now you have resorted to "Off topic" as a method of avoiding the questions that make your position so untenable that even you might be forced to recognise it's deficiencies. Oh really? Are you referring to your vague, ambiguous and rather meaningless metaphor for scientific theories as scaffolding? Message 480Or are you referring to your relentless retreat from initially claiming that science doesn't use induction to your position now which demands that it be logically proven that scientific principles cannot be derived any other way? When all else fails simply cry "but you cannot prove it" huh? And then you have the gall to tell others that they are exhibiting creo style behaviour.Incredible.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

It has been demonstrated to you that science does use induction. It has been demonstrated to you that deductive logic is unable to derive universal laws and principles of the sort science indisputably concludes. It has been demonstrated to you that philosophers of the significance of Popper have tried to eliminate induction from science because it is not an intellectually satisfying or concrete method of drawing conclusions. It has been demonstrated to you that these attempts have failed. It has been demonstrated to you that your own confused, contradictory and ambiguous mutterings result in a description of science that denies science the ability to draw reliable and accurate (albeit tenative) conclusions about the future behaviour of specific aspects of nature. It has been demonstrated to you that despite your assertions that such conclusions are "guesses" or personal "opinions" science can and does draw such conclusions. It has been demonstrated to you that science does indeed utilises inductive reasoning in it's methods and that it does so to great practical effect.In short you have been refuted.

Double post. See below.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

In this regard you have come to the same conclusion as everyone except Nwr in this thread. Even Jon got there in the end.But the question remains - Do you accept that ALL scientific theories, even the most highly tested of theories, which make universal or general statements are tentative conclusions derived (at least in part) from inductive reasoning as opposed to statements of logical certitude?Do you agree that high confidence yet tentative and falsifiable theories can be derived by incorporating such inductive methods into one's investigations and resulting conclusions? If I was asked whether or not a perpetual motion machine exists I would give the answer (based on the evidence) "Almost certainly not".Are you saying that this answer is unjustified? And what answer would you give to that question bearing in mind that certainty is not an option with regard to scientific universal principles.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Do you really think that you have succeeded where Hume, Popper et al have failed? Are you not swayed at all by the arguments of those practicing scientists who have taken part in this thread and who have described their methods as incorporating inductive reasoning? To quote you "Apparently, you are unable to see it." The irony of you making this statement will no doubt also be lost on you......

So Newtons second law is unfalsifiable as far as you are concerned?

Then it cannot be something that is true simply by definition as you previously asserted can it? Except when it's not. Or as you so eloquently put it: Netwon's laws apply to inertial frames. They are exceptionally good approximations to almost all practically encountered situations.But the fact that they are not true by virtue of simply being defined to be so rather mucks up your point doesn't it?

So you agree that Poppers claim to have solved the induction problem failed. Yet in your last post to Crashfrog you are once again citing Popper's argument as the solution to the problem of induction.Are you stupid? Or have you changed your mind on something since then?Edited by Straggler, : Fix message links

No. Because it's limitations are considered by science to be as universal as the law itself. We wouldn't say that the second law of thermodynamics is not a universal principle in science because it is limited to closed systems would we? As long as we are applying laws such as the one in question to specific as yet unobserved situations and expecting nature to operate in accordance with these laws we are doing so on the basis of inductively concluding the uniformity of nature.

So you cannot reconcile your original position with your latest one then. Didn't think so.If I throw a stick will you just go away?

Let me be more explicit about the deficiencies in your position.You advocate Popper’s view of non-inductive science but without the key feature of his thesis required to overcome the need for induction. You advocate instrumentalism without the key tenet of instrumentalism which is that a theory should be judged solely on it's ability to accurately and reliably predict the behaviour of nature in a way that is usefulThe failure of your position is derived from the fact that by picking and choosing disparate elements of different philosophical positions which you think support your false view of science you end up with a description of science that cannot in any way account for the ability of science to do the things it demonstrably does very adeptly. You are left only with guesses and opinions (to use your nomenclature) regarding the future behaviour of natural phenomena.If I put a piece of potassium in a glass of water what does science tell us will happen? But science can and does do this very effectively. And this is why the description of science you are advocating continues to be refuted.