Induction and Science

If this is the only thing you consider to be induction - then we agree science doesn't generally do this.Though Newton did go from a few data points with pendulums to 'every action has an equal and opposite reaction' and you didn't accept that evidence.I'm thinking science develops a theory which it doesn't say is 'true' but says is 'supported' with 'some degree of confidence' by a limited set of data points. This is what I mean by induction in science.

I would have thought a much more likely candidate would be found in Bayesianism somewhere, which as the article I cited earlier suggested - can be found in the sciences, even if some may reject it.Edited by Modulous, : typo

Newton asserted that applying a force to a mass will always result in a change in velocity.This is in contrast to idea that applying a force to a mass can sometimes result in a maintenance of velocity.Force is proportional to the product of an objects mass and its acceleration (or in other words the force required to accelerate an object is proportional to its mass).It is only equal to the product of mass and acceleration if you choose Newtons as the unit of force and kilogrammes as units of mass and ms^-2 as the units of acceleration. Newtons ARE defined as having the units of 1kg.ms^-2.Towards the theme of the topic:- we could predict that a certain action will generate a certain specified force (release of a coiled spring, rocket engine etc). Then we could test that force against various masses. It is, in principle, possible that all the tests could show the acceleration was proportional to the highest amplitude wavelengths of light reflected from the objects and not its mass.Believing that this won't happen requires an inductive leap, yes?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I think the 'problem' is describing science in such a way as to avoid using induction, and this is what people are saying you haven't really done in the 209 posts you've made here. Instead of saying you've done it could you try dedicating 500(or more) of your own words in one post to presenting this version of science.Otherwise the debate has ended and we're just left with repeating 'you're wrong' at each other. I've followed the debate from its inception and am not yet in a position where I feel I could reiterate your position as to how science (as done by scientists not philosophers) actually goes about doing things without induction.I understand some of the arguments 'out there' by other people in support of the position that science doesn't use induction - but I really have difficulty understanding your argument - and it appears I'm not alone. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

So you say. And so you keep saying. I was just suggesting that rather than repeat that you have while others repeat that you haven't, you either let what you have said stand or you try to bring all the disparate posts in this thread together into one specific post that describes in depth your thoughts on this issue.As I said: I understand the objections to induction in science from other sources but I'm having difficulty understanding your objections because they are fragmentary, split over numerous posts with varying metaphors and some frankly mysterious statements. If you don't want to clear this up for me, or for anyone else, do you see any reason to continue participating in the discussion?

And how does the method adopted prevent induction occurring? What's to stop the method involving induction somewhere? What's to stop induction being part of the theory that 'loads' the data? After all, if inductive reasoning can work well, and can certainly reach conclusions other modes reasoning can't. If there is a pragmatic justification for employing induction - then surely it would be used? Could you explain how Universal Common Descent is a description of the method rather than a proposed description on the world. As obvious as you suggest this is, most people don't see it. Further, could you show that this is how scientists see what a scientific theory is, rather than just a select group of philosophers? I don't see this as a reason for it to be obvious. Nor do I see any reason to suppose that the sole purpose of a theory is to communicate the science. What does it mean 'to communicate the science'? Do you mean 'communicate the method'?