Induction and Science

No actual "demonstration" has been provided, so there is nothing to show wrong.How about you present a real argument. Start with clearly stated premises, so that there is something asserted that could be challenged. Then provide the logical deduction from those premises to the conclusion.All that has been presented are woo woo arguments with no actual evidence. They are argument of the form "it just must be so". I'll take that as an admission that you are playing games.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

It's your thread - how about you present one?

How are you supporting the claim you made in the O.P.? You claim that it is a myth that science uses induction.So, can you demonstrate that no inductive reasoning is ever used in science without using inductive reasoning?Here's your O.P. again. What you do here is give a non-real-world example. No scientist would form a hypothesis based on three people wearing the most common colour of shoe. It's not even a remarkable coincidence, and no-one would notice it.Then, from your particular example, you reason inductively to the general, and give your conclusion that it is a myth that science uses inductive reasoning.Either you are presenting an inductive theory that science doesn't use inductive reasoning, or you've read every scientific paper ever written and confirmed that there's no induction present.Which is it?

I am not trying to prove a negative. I gave reasons to doubt induction. I'm awaiting evidence from induction supporters, that it is actually used.The reason to doubt induction is there in the text I quoted from SEP, in Message 600. Namely, "all observation is selective and theory-ladenthere are no pure or theory-free observations." If induction is used to form a theory, then the observations must have been made before the theory emerged. That requires that observations be theory-free. If observation is theory-laden, then the theory is used in making the observations, so the observations did not precede the theory.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

Sorry, but that doesn't follow. That's like saying that because paint is used to make a painting, all paint must have been made before the existence of any paintings. Not so. The observations may simply have been laden with a different theory, or, Popper may be wrong.

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

Equivocally, I suppose.As you said: "They are exceptionally good approximations to almost all practically encountered situations."I guess if you want to say that because there an exception then we shouldn't be calling it "true", then you're right.But then, if F=ma is not true, doesn't your point about the inductive applications of it also fail?Regardless, isn't it still a decent example of a way that science can yield theories without needing induction?

I have already addressed this, Straggler. Please go back and reread my response. You can find it in Message 557.Jon

---

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

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.

Nope, which is why its wierd that you're doing that to F=ma. I'll take that as a yes.

Huh? I have explained to you where Newton's second law universally applies and where it doesn't. So what are you taking about? Except that if we consider Newton's second law to be a universal principle as applied to inertial frames it is actually a "No".

Which key feature? If you mean falsification, then that is usually taken as intended to help decide between science and pseudo-science. If it doesn't work for that (and it doesn't), we should abandon it.When was the last time that an accepted scientific theory was falsified? You are making stuff up.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie