Induction and Science

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

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.

Accepting a theory because it has not yet been falsified is a form of induction.

Many religious claims are inductive. For instance "intelligence has been observed to be a source of complexity; thus, complexity in living organisms is the result of intelligence."No claim has been made that induction always produces truth. Science produces accurate models by using a form of induction constrained by scientific rigor.

I'm sorry but this bears no relationship to the scientific agenda.Have you ever actually spoken to a scientist? Just curious.If scientific theories were descriptions of methods instead of descriptions of the world, they wouldn't be able to make accurate predictions about the world - just about methods. And the purpose of science is to explain the world, not to explain itself. That kind of circular focus would produce no knowledge at all, how could it?Once again you're up against the dilemma straggler keeps raising and you keep ignoring - your model of science makes it impossible for science to actually do what science observably does; thus you're wrong. Obviously.

That doesn't answer the question.