How can scientific predictions be made without being based on the inductive conclusion that natural phenomenon will behave in the future as they have been observed to behave thus far?
Why, deductively, of course.
How can science make any conclusions about any future event without invoking a degree of inductive reasoning from which further logical deductions can then be made?
Why, deductively, of course.
Jon writes:
Too bad this thread is about science, and so Bill's epistemology is irrelevant.
Except that you accepted it as valid and now I am applying it.
...
Now I think Bill's method of knowing is silly. But you said it was as valid as any other merely because it is internally logically consistent. So I am going to apply Bill's epistemology to demonstrate to you that simply picking ones internally consistent axioms to derive the conclusion one wants is not a very useful method of finding out anything at all.
And this, of course, is exactly what you have done in your little logic exercise.
Not sure what that means Straggler; but the application of Bill's epistemology has nothing to do with this thread.
Jon writes:
Okay; I'll prompt again: lay out your argumentpremises and conclusions.
As per Bill's epistemology: My premise is that what I believe is true. I believe that induction is not deduction without the premises being stated. Thus my conclusion is that induction is not deduction without the premises being stated. Thus I conclude that you are wrong.
Ahhh... that explains it. Next time try not starting from a bullshit premise.
Jon writes:
Straggler writes:
I would suggest that science uses inductive reasoning to arrive at these launch points for deductive reasoning.
Good suggestion; why not bother backing it up? (As you've been asked to do twice now.)
How do we predict if not by applying deductive logic to conclusions inductively derived from necessarily incomplete evidence?
Actually, asking a completely irrelevant question does nothing to back up your argument. If you really want to back up your argument, you can point to an inductive argument that cannot be shown to be a deductive one with premises removedi.e., one to which we cannot merely add premises that make it a deductive argument without altering the conclusion. I've made a falsifiable argument. To falsify it, you need only provide one example of an argument that is inductive that cannot be made deductive by adding missing premises. Really, Straggler, you're not being asked to do too much.
So we have to have some way of deriving our starting point for deductive logic.
Sure. Not sure how this has any bearing on whether inductive arguments are merely deductive arguments with unstated premises, though.
Nonsense in = Nonsense out.
Generally, yes. But, I'm not sure how this has any bearing on whether inductive arguments are merely deductive arguments with unstated premises.
Deductive logic will only give you outputs that are consistent with your inputs.
That is usually the hope. But, what bearing does this have on whether inductive arguments are merely deductive arguments with unstated premises?
Because purely deductive methods mean that - Nonsense In = Nonsense Out
Okay. Still not sure how this has any bearing on whether inductive arguments are merely deductive arguments with unstated premises.
So, Straggler, why not lay out an example of an inductive argument that cannot be shown to be a deductive one with removed premises? I've made a falsifiable argument. To falsify it, you need only provide one example of an argument that is inductive that cannot be made deductive by adding missing premises. You're really not being asked to do too much.
I hope you're up for the task...
Jon
Check out Apollo's Temple!
™ Version 4.2
