Induction and Science

It is based on Lebesgue integration, where a probability is a measure (as used in Lebesgue integration theory).I don't think you really want a full discussion of that. Mathematical induction is very different from the philosophical induction that we are talking about here. Mathematical induction is deductive.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

Presumably that depends on the science.The statistical inference is just using a mathematical modeling tool to handle data. The Peano axioms

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

You seem to be arguing against a position that nobody actually holds.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

I have been presenting a position throughout the discussion. You, like the other participants, have ignored it. Apparently, you are unable to see it.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

Completely off topic for this thread, so I shall continue to ignore it. I was not refuted there, nor elsewhere.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

I am not playing games.I have not suggested that "nobody understands." Rather, I have said that it appears to be invisible to them.I make clear statements that nobody responds to. Then I later point out the message, and still nobody responds.I don't know why it is invisible. I suspect that it is drowned out by the unstated assumptions that you and others are making - and you are probably not even aware that you are making unstated assumptions.I recognize that I have not been a successful communicator on this topic. I'm moving on. I suggest you do likewise.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

However, no such thing has been demonstrated.I have no doubt that you believe it has been demonstrated. Most of the people in this forum are true believers in the religion of inductionism. What's sad, is that you have abandoned your critical thinking skills. You present pseudo-arguments that are based on jumping to conclusions, and claim that you have demonstrated something.That you believe induction is used is fine. You are entitled to believe that if you think it gives the best explanation. That you present wishy washy non-demonstrative arguments, and claim that they are demonstrations - well that's a problem.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

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

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

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

You are mixing two things. If induction is not actually used, then falsification is not required in order to overcome the (non-existent) need for induction.On the other hand, Popper did claim that his falsification solves the induction problem, and I have agreed that he was wrong about that. It's there in Message 513 of thread Peanut Gallery. You don't say which theory. I'm guessing that it was actually an hypothesis that was falsified, rather than a theory. Theories are not hypotheses, and hypotheses are not theories, though sometimes a successful hypothesis can lead to a theory.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

No.I agree with Popper's claim that induction is not actually used. However, I don't otherwise agree with his philosophy of science. You reject that without even saying why. Your commitment to your religion of inductionism is really really deep.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

You have just made religion a form of induction.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

Bare assertion, with no supporting evidence. I have not claimed to solve that "problem". It's a pseudo-problem. Science doesn't work that way at all.But thanks for clearly demonstrating that you haven't even been reading what I have been posting.Edited by nwr, : No reason given.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

But I have.When I do so, people could ask for further explanation. Instead, they assert (without evidence) that I am wrong, and then ask questions about potassium.Here's an example of what science actually does:

• All the millions of observations have reported that the sun and stars move around a stationary earth;
• therefore the earth is not at all stationary; it is the sun and stars that are closer to being stationary.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie