Induction and Science

As per Message 541Will gravity still be operating as currently experienced next week?On what basis do you make your conclusion?

On what do you base your "probably" conclusion?Why more likely than not?Be specific.

I am not asking you whether you are worried or not. That has fuck-all to do with anything.I am asking you whether or not gravity will continue to act as we now know it.Will the pen that I drop next week still drop at the same rate, obeying the same laws that it did when I dropped my pen just now?Previously you said "probably". On what do you base this conclusion? Why is it more likely than not? Be specific. But this isn't just about deriving a particular set of conclusions. This is about the fundamentals of science. The entirety of science and it's ability to predict is based on the consistency of natural laws.So are the scientific predictions I make based on the consistency of natural laws valid? Or are they based on inductive logic and thus invalid as far as your OP (and general stance in the previous thread from which we re-ignited this one) are concerned?

Replying to Message 544Yes it is.F=ma is a relationship between empirically observed phenomenon. You say F=ma is a standard and you say that a standard is an invention.

Then on what basis can we predict anything?Will gravity still be operating as currently experienced next week?You said "probably". Can you explain this answer or are you just guessing? Questions are not "stupid" just because you do not like them or cannot answer them in a manner that is consistent with your position.Will gravity still be operating as currently experienced next week? On what basis do you make your conclusion?You have not answered this at all so stop asserting that you have.

Try being less ambiguous. Maybe you will find that you actually have a position that can be scrutinised.But maybe you don't want that......

Is guessing a reliable method of drawing conclusions? We have the consistency of natural law based on inductive reasoning that says it almost certainly won't change.I will bet you everything I own Vs everything you own that a pen dropped next Thursday will obey all the natural laws that apply today.Will you take that bet?

I have yet to see you ever say anything unambiguous or precise here at EvC.You are the master of ambiguity and evasiveness.

Will gravity still be operating as currently experienced next week?On what basis do you make your conclusion?You have not answered this. Why can you not answer this? It requires cause and effect. How do you derive very specific causal relationships on necessarily incomplete evidence without inductive reasoning?You have proffered no alternative. You are thinking like an evasionist. The topic is for you to describe not just why you think induction is flawed but to to provide a feasible alternative. You have not done that.So far you have failed to explain on what basis you think we can rely on gravity, friction or indeed anything else from one moment to the next. Here is your opportunity to describe your alternative as applied to a specific example.Will gravity still be operating as currently experienced next week?On what basis do you make your conclusion?AbE - And don't blurt some meaningless phrase (e.g. "statistical reasoning" ) at me. Actually explain how you are deriving your conclusion and highlight how this differs from inductive reasoning. Be specific.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Did you deduce this?How?

Well I started from different premises and deductively reached the opposite conclusion to you regarding inductive reasoning.So now what?

OK. I will. What is "statistical reasoning"? How does it work? In what way is it significantly different to the sort of inductive reasoning that we are all familiar with?And specifically describe how can it be used to derive the conclusion that gravity will "probably" still be operating as currently experienced?Is that clearer? As will actually answering questions rather than posting stock phrases and meaningless philosopho-sounding but unexplained terms as answers.

Such as? Where? Is "statistical reasoning" is your only response? If so I ask:What is "statistical reasoning"?
How does it work?
In what way is it significantly different to the sort of inductive reasoning that we are all familiar with?And can you specifically describe how can it be used to derive the conclusion that gravity will "probably" still be operating as currently experienced?Your usual trick of posting stock phrases and meaningless philosopho-sounding but unexplained terms as answers just isn't good enough.Edited by Straggler, : Fix quotes

Why?

The fact you do not like a question and cannot answer it does not make it a bad question. Nor does it make it "off-topic".I would say that we can consider it exceptionally probable that gravity will still be operating as currently experienced and that this conclusion is derived from inductive reasoning. Hence the relevancy.You deny the validity of inductive reasoning and instead have advocated something you are calling "statistical reasoning". So I asked:What is "statistical reasoning"?
How does it work?
In what way is it significantly different to the sort of inductive reasoning that we are all familiar with?And can you specifically describe how can it be used to derive the conclusion that gravity will "probably" still be operating as currently experienced?If you don't like gravity for some reason then apply the same question to friction or the electrostatic force or indeed anything else that is commonly referred to as a "natural law".But ALL I ask is that your don't do your usual trick of posting stock phrases and meaningless philosopho-sounding but unexplained terms as answers. For once in your nut nibbling squirrel brained EvC existence don't hide behind the cover of ambiguity.