Induction and Science

In order to see if you can backup your assertion. It seems that you cannot. How do you deductively conclude from a limited set of observations that a conclusion based on those limited set of obsevations applies universally?Perhaps you can explain specifically how Newton's third law which tells us that ALL forces are the result of interactions (as per Message 275) was arrived at wholly deductively?Can you backup your assertion or not?

So this axiom of yours which you have repeatedly asserted is "derived from nothing" is actually derived from experience. That it will always apply, as per your "axiom", is thus an inductive conclusion.Exactly as I have been saying all along. You said that to falsify your little logic exercise I "need only provide one example of an argument that is inductive that cannot be made deductive by adding missing premises".You have conceded that your "derived from nothing" axiomatic starting point of your little deductive exercise is in fact derived from experience.Have you ever woken up to observe the world in a state that is inconsistent with it functioning as observed while you were not observing it?Have you (for example) ever awoken to find that the world appeared to have been on pause during your period of non-observance?Do you think you ever will? Then you remain refuted.

If the standard is to apply to future observations of nature in the same way that it applies to existing obsevations then you must be implicitly assuming that nature itself will in the future behave in a manner that is consistent with past behaviour.Thus your "standard" is nothing more than the rebranded inductive conclusion that nature will behave in the future as it has been observed to behave in the past.Although how you reconcile this with your assertions that predicted timings of eclipses are nothing but "opinions" and "guesses" remains a mystery.

Doesn't it?Do you think that the scientific conclusion is that F=ma only applies to those occurrances we have actually observed rather than ALL events where forces apply? Can't be? Are you saing that nature cannot be applying forces that are proportional to the mass squared elsewhere in the universe because our theory simply won't allow that to occur?CS Do you think nature cares what the standard is or will behave in accordance with this standard just because we have defined it as a standard?Without induction what reason do you have to expect your standard to apply to anything that has not been directly observed to behave in the standard manner?

Whatever nomenclature you use the conclusion that nature will behave in the future as it has been observed to behave in the past is inductive. And any universal principle of science is necessarily considered to apply to past, present and future events. So.EITHER you are advocating a description of science that is entirely non-inductive and which thus considers conclusions regarding future events to be nothing more than guesses and opinions. This position makes scientific universal principles an impossibility. This view of science is refuted by the very fact that science does in practise derive principles which are considered to be universal.OR you are advocating a standard which includes the ability to make universal statements and which is thus itself inductive (as per Message 363). In this case your entire non-inductive science argument is trivially refuted by the underlying presence of inductive reasoning.You started with the former of these two positions. Now you seem to be advocating the latter.But either way your position(s) are refuted. If you find objective repeatable evidence of a force that is not the result of an interaction or of an interaction where the motion of a body is not affected in a manner consistent with Newton' laws then you will indeed have falsified Newton's laws.Your Nobel prize awaits....... If your entire "standards" argument is ultimately inductive as per Message 363 this can hardly be described as irrelevant to the question of whether science is inductive or not now can it?The fact you cannot answer a question without contradicting yourself doesn't make it irrelevant Nwr.

And why would you expect nature to comply with your standard in these future observations?

Pots and kettles.....Do you think that our theories define or reflect reality Nwr?Do you think nature cares what the standard is or will behave in accordance with this standard just because we have defined it as a standard?This standard that has been constructed is completely worthless if new observations do not conform to it isn’t it?But unless you are inductively conclude that nature will continue to behave as observed thus far why would your standard apply to any new observations?Without induction what reason do you have to expect your standard to apply to anything that has not been directly observed to behave in the standard manner?Without induction how is it possible to have anything that could even be called a universal principle?Yet science does derive universal principles. Because we do inductively conclude that nature will continue to behave in the same way it has been observed to behave prevoulsy.This is a part of science that your non-inductive view of science just cannot cope with.

Talk about change the question!!! I didn't ask what was "required".It seems that you are unable to answer the question actually put to you without refuting yourself. Let's see what the possible answers are:A) "I don't expect nature to comply with a standard in any future observations" In which case your induction-free-science argument makes genuinely scientific universal principles an impossibility. Yet they exist. Thus you are refuted.B) "I do expect nature to comply with the standard in future observations because nature can be assumed to behave in the future as it has in the past". In which case you are using inductive reasoning. In which case you are also refuted.So Nwr which is it? Or do you have a third option? Do share.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : Spelling

Jon — How is an assumption derived from nothing different to a blind random guess? An assumption based on what? Nothing? Or one inductively derived on the limited set of observations?I say the latter. You have yet present any valid alternative beyond "nothing". So you continue to insist that your axioms are derived from nothing despite the fact they are entirely consistent with, and wholly derivable from, everything you have ever observed or experienced.It must just be by extraordinary coincidence that your experience and your axioms tally up so well. I mean it would be utterly unfounded to suggest that these axioms of yours might have been inductively derived from totality of experience rather than nothing wouldn’t it?Only a deranged zealot would possibly make such an outrageous suggestion. Silly me.But with your uncanny ability to make such astonishingly consistent guesses you really should take up gambling. Why don’t you make some of your uncanny assumptions and then deduce who is going to win tomorrow night’s football?

Then you are wrong. Let me explain why. And therein lies the fundamental difference between standards and universal principles. Universal principles are not definitions. Universal principles impose conclusions (albeit tentative and falsifiable ones) on as yet unobserved aspects of nature. When we say F=ma we are not just stating a definition and baselessly hoping (or not) that future observations will comply as per a standard. We are instead actually inductively concluding that nature will behave in a manner that is consistent with this regardless of when or where the event in question takes place. Exactly. If standards cannot be used to derive universal principles then they cannot be considered to represent how science actually works in the real world. Nwr’s description of non-inductive science is refuted as unable to cope with the real workings of that which it claims to describe.

One’s qualifications are hardly a guarantee of the quality of ones arguments. But as you have questioned mine specifically I feel compelled to respond.I actually have a degree in physics from Imperial College London. As part of this course I conducted many of the most famous experiments in the history of science. These included measuring the universal gravitational constant, measuring the speed of light, conducting the Michelson Morley ether experiment, the photoelectric effect, Millikan’s experiment to measure the charge of an electron and a whole host of other equally pertinent examples of experimental science in action. In addition as part of this course I did the ‘Philosophy of science’ module where we studied the thinking of Aristotle to Feyerabend via Popper, Lakatos and numerous others. In this particular course I actually achieved the highest marks in my year.Furthermore I have taught physics and maths to university entrance level both in the UK and elsewhere in the world So whilst I don’t doubt that I could from a refresher course of some sorts to re-invigorate my tired old brain I have actually taught much of the content of the freshman level you are suggesting that I should make myself familiar with.You may not like my arguments NWR. You certainly seem unable to deal with them. But whatever failings my arguments may or may not have cannot be attributed to lack of education or experience in the way that you are attempting to assert.Now stop being a dickhead Nwr and try to actually overcome the problem in your position. Namely confronting the fact that universal principles are derived from science, that these are necessarily inductive by their very nature and that your standards argument is unable to cope with this fact.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

You are conflating derivation with application.Even if F=ma was not derived inductively (and I would argue that it was at least in part) it is indisputably applied inductively.

Universal principles are fundamentally different to standards because they impose conclusions (albeit tentative and falsifiable ones) on as yet unobserved aspects of nature.When we say conservation of energy we are not just stating a definition and baselessly hoping that future observations will comply as per a standard. We are instead actually inductively concluding that nature will behave in a manner that is consistent with this principle regardless of when or where the event in question takes place.Any universal principle of science (e.g. Newton’s universal law of gravitation, conservation of energy, the second law of thermodynamics etc. etc. etc.) is considered to apply to ALL relevant events. Whether past present or future, observed or unobserved.You are advocating a description of science that is entirely non-inductive and which thus considers conclusions regarding future events to be nothing more than guesses and opinions. This is the position you espoused clearly earlier in this thread. You described predicted eclipses exactly as guesses and opinions. This view of science makes genuinely scientific universal principles and scientific conclusions derived from these principles regarding as yet unobserved events an impossibility.This view of science is refuted by the very fact that science does derive principles which it considers to be universal and conclusions from these principles pertaining to future events (e.g. the timing of eclipses) which are not guesses or opinions but actual scientific conclusions.Science is inductive whether you like it or not. You are refuted by the existence of scientific principles which are considered by science to be universal. Yet scientific theories do. Thus "standards" are not an accurate description of what science does. Yet science does expect nature to comply with universal principles (albeit tentatively). Thus your non-inductive science is refuted as unable to cope with the real life workings of that which it claims to describe.Your standards argument has nothing to do with actual science. You have invented a form of science that doesn’t exist.

If we wanted to send a rocket to Mars (or wherever else) we could make the necessary calculations on Earth today.The idea that we need to wait and see if nature will still be behaving in accordance with Newton's laws on the day of the launch isn't even an issue.The idea that we need to factor in the possibility that Newton's laws won't apply on Mars in the same way that they do on Earth won't even be an issue.Why? Because inductively we (albeit tentatively) know that Newton's laws will apply equally whenever it is that we launch our rocket and wherever it is that our rocket lands. It cannot be considered universal unless you inductively conclude that it applies in all cases. So, practically by definition, it's status as a universal principle has been arrived at inductively. If you are saying that F=ma by definition regardless of what we observe in nature then by the terms of your argument Newton's laws are unfalsifiable.That just isn't how science works CS.

Is there no end to your bewilderment?If we wanted to send a rocket to Mars (or wherever else) we could make the necessary calculations on Earth today.
The idea that we need to wait and see if nature will still be behaving in accordance with Newton's laws on the day of the launch isn't even an issue.The idea that we need to factor in the possibility that Newton's laws won't apply on Mars in the same way that they do on Earth won't even be an issue.Why? Because inductively we (albeit tentatively) know that Newton's laws will apply equally whenever it is that we launch our rocket and wherever it is that our rocket lands.Of course by the terms of your "axioms dervied from nothing" argument any successful rocket launch or landing is just the result of deductions made from spectacularly fortuitous baseless guesses.