Induction and Science

quote:

---

The premises of an inductive logical argument indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion but do not entail it; that is, they suggest truth but do not ensure it.

---

sourceSo, you use inductive logic in every day life.
As does science.So - this thread is done?

Fine.
But please remember that everyone else is using the established name for inductive logic - which is: 'inductive logic'.
And 'statistical reasoning' already has a definition which does not describe your behaviour.Things can get very confused when someone decides to arbitrarily re-define words in the English language.

Actually I was referring to how you describe your own behaviour.But anyway - go ahead and change the meanings of words as you wish.
Just don't forget that only you will understand.

My maths teacher did this 'divide by zero' trick so that he could mathematically prove that 1 = 2.
But he did it knowing it was flawed.

Aren't calculations the main difference between inductive logic and statistical reasoning?
Inductive logic doesn't have calculations: it just says "It happened all last year: it will probably happen next year too".
Whereas statistical reasoning calculates the 'odds' of something happening: "There is a 90% chance that it will happen next year".Edited by Panda, : posyt

I think I screwed up my previous post - my head cold is fugging my finking.
I'll try again...*cough*Aren't calculated 'odds' the main difference between Inductive Logic and Statistical Reasoning?
Inductive Logic doesn't require calculated values in it's conclusion: it can just say "It happened all last year: it will probably happen next year too".
Whereas Statistical Reasoning does require the chance of something happening to be calculated and stated: "There is a 90.1% chance that it will happen next year".I would therefore describe Statistical Reasoning as a 'subset' of Inductive Logic.Edited by Panda, : tpyos

I thought I should point out that this is a self-referencing statement.
"There are one hundred 100ths of a metre in a metre"
It is no different to saying that "Red frogs are red" or "wooden furniture is made of wood".
Maybe you should change your example?

So...the unchanging pattern of summers being hotter and winters being colder (in the northern hemisphere) has no constancy?

Please answer the question I asked and not the question you made up in your head. Edited by Panda, : typo

No.
A specific pattern is defined and fixed."a combination of qualities, acts, tendencies, etc., forming a consistent or characteristic arrangement."
This is the normal meaning of pattern when discussing seasons and weather.
Summers are consistantly warmer than winters (in the northern hemisphere).Now, answer the question or retract your initial comment.

What makes you think that 'predictions' are the same as 'logical consequences'? Why do you think that a 'scientific conclusion' is not related to 'knowledge'? Yes. Jon, do you really think that there is any point to what you posted?
You answered 2 questions with 2 more questions and then just asserted "No".

Ok. Then here's my question:
Do you think that a 'scientific conclusion' is not related to 'knowledge'?
Please explain how you came to your answer. Hmm...I am having trouble following your equivocation.Did you actually mean:
Now, how do you "know"?
or perhaps
Now, how do you know?When you are constantly bouncing between the different meanings of words, it becomes very difficult to follow which definition you are currently using.

Thank you for the quote.
I will use it to remind you to stop being petty and that no-one is interested in word games.

Well, it didn't take long for the hypocrisy to shine through...Edited by Panda, : No reason given.