Induction means that the future will be like the past and is the very basis for science(generalization). It is looking back at reasoning in the past to deduce that reasoning now and in the future will be valid. Inductive reasoning cannot be proven, because it has to be used to prove it and is thus a rhetorical circularity from the finite. The future is not testable, hence science - the art of testing - assumes something it cannot measure. Like the laws of logic, induction cannot be observed or demonstrated, only used - Bahnsenburner. The future cannot be demonstrated only assumed, either from virtuous circularity(Gen 8, Heb 6) or Agrippian rhetorical circularity. By implication there are no such thing as natural laws , it is the reification fallacy. YEC are not "anti-science" because we are not anti- Genesis 8 induction.
Science is used as proxy for empiricism and futurism(induction) which leads to ambiguity . The future is not empirical http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/issues/value/futures2025.pdf p. "....Because the future is inherently not open to direct experience, there are no facts established and no evidence to measure. “Knowledge of the future is not empirical knowledge, but interpretive knowledge” (Slaughter, 1995, p. 32)..." wikipedi
Second, the observations themselves do not establish the validity of inductive reasoning, except inductively.
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCBa6ahPYaM ".... Methodological naturalism on the other hand is concerned with the methods of philosophy and their connection to science. Methodological naturalists hold that both science and philosophy are searching for non-definitional(synthetic) truth by using experience ( a posteriori means). ..."
replace science with induction reduce1: "....... materialism is concerned with the methods of philosophy and their connection to induction. Naturalists hold that both induction and philosophy are searching for truth by using the inductive generalization of experience ...."
reduce2: "....... People who believe they came from rocks are concerned with their usage of induction. Rockists hold that both induction and philosophy are searching for truth by usinging induction ...."
reduce3: "....... People who believe they came from rocks are concerned with their usage of induction and how using induction leads us to inductive truths..."
finally: Materialists attempt to use induction to justify induction.
Scientific or inductific ?
- http://www.salon.com/2014/05/19/creationists_now_losing_their_minds_because_neil_degrasse_tyson_explained_electricity/ "...Then they attacked their all-time favorite punching bag and number-one enemy, Richard Dawkins. Anyone who has watched Dawkins’ amazing Christmas Lecture would know he did not attack or demean religion, and simply displayed the amazing powers of science...."
Induction like logic can't be experienced nor displayed, verified or tested. Stop using the term 'science', use Induction instead. It would be very strange for a materialist to repeat the whole time: I am inductific, I utilize induction, we must use induction. This states the obvious and becomes a truism from which, like with rhetorical tautologies, any conclusion is a non sequitur . Plug in the definitions of terms to uncover the hidden tautologies - Walter Remine . If science is based on induction and induction itself is circularly based on induction then we have truism: Induction is based on induction and therefore .....(insert whatever your conclusion) ...... doesn't follow logically.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o38eZ__xhO8 Stephen Meyer and Michael Ruse commits the reification fallacy, natural laws don't exist and uses the term "scientific" repetitively to obscure that they cannot justify the circularity of induction.
- "... If you are in possession of this revolutionary secret of science, why not prove it and be hailed as the new Newton? Of course, we know the answer. You can't do it. You are a fake. —Richard Dawkins on pseudoscientists ...." from http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
Dawkins is reifying induction and the laws of logic. Induction and logic can't be proved because God can't be proved.
Induction is a name for generalization. One attempted solution to this problem is to postulate the principle of uniformity of nature: if nature has uniformities then descriptions of those uniformities can safely by generalised; another attempted solution is to say that scientific induction clearly works well and so is justified. Both of these fail because the only knowledge we can have of the principle of uniformity of nature and of the success of scientific induction is inductive, thereby making induction ultimately circular.
168. But now, what part is played by the presupposition that a substance A always reacts to a substance B in the same way, given the same circumstances? Or is that part of the definition of a substance?
169. One might think that there were propositions declaring that chemistry is possible. And these would be propositions of a natural science. For what should they be supported by, if not by experience?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ET9oRKEwESA video 3 , 14min Series of videos
"... all factual inferences are founded on experience, it follows that the inference has to be based on the assumption of uniformity .... and then we get the proof that we have no ground for making that assumption ...." 12 min
Uniformity means that what has happened in the past, is a guide to what will happen in the future. Nowhere in the video did Millican mention Agrippa's trilemma which strikes at the heart of Humes problem of induction.
John Wilkins on induction
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8MMPkA9LgI Scientific realism
- http://evolvingthoughts.net/2014/08/wilkins-on-demarcation/, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwbkRyopBEQ Demarcation problem. "... after Thomas Khun's publication 1964.... it became a lot harder to say what was and what was not science, it then becomes a matter of what does scientists do and who are scientists, it is those who do science .... and it becomes very problematic ..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend held the view that everything can be science, creationism, homeopathy or whatever. "
Wilkins phrases the circularity problem: scientists do science and science is what scientists do. We use induction(science) to justify induction. The problem with induction, numbers and the laws of logic are that they can't be experienced, but are used to express our experiences of matter and energy. Justifying logic by using logic makes our logic arbitrary in violation of law of noncontradiction, only God can justify our logic and reason. This must be so by necessity to prevent an Agrippian regression of experiences.
"....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend held the view that everything can be science, creationism, homeopathy or whatever....."
Which is a remarkable insight by Feyerabend because all our endeavors must by necessity generalize by using induction the past as guide to the now and future. Homeopathy is a collection of falsified and unfalsifiable nonsense, using induction doesn't guarantee sound conclusions.
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3326923?uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21103436777933 Circularity and Induction Peter Achinste in Analysis Vol. 23, No. 6 (Jun., 1963), pp. 123-127
Deduction is based on induction
In making deductive arguments we had to inductively assume our reasoning was valid in the past and will be in the future. Does this imply that deduction is based on induction.
- p1: We inductively use our reasoning to justify our reasoning in a circular manner.
- p2: To make a deductive argument, we had to use our reasoning.
- C: Induction enables deduction, like unfalsifiability enables the expression of falsifiability.
The first premise becomes a suppressed premise in the formulation of world views.
There is a logically symmetric problem with deduction, as pointed out e.g. by Susan Haack in her article "The Justification of Deduction" (Mind New Series, Vol. 85, No. 337 (Jan., 1976), pp. 112-119). http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=5913.50;wap2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xO3Gw0zlmWM , www.jstor.org/stable/2253263
http://homepages.wmich.edu/~mcgrew/Deduction.pdf ".....We are, Alston says, “ineluctably engaged in forming beliefs in ways we cannot non-circularly show to be reliable. And that sticks in our craw.”2 What sticks in Alston’s craw is not, to others, particularly disturbing. According to Plantinga, our inability to justify deduction is of a piece with the rest of our cognitive life and should be no cause for alarm. Of course deduction cannot be “credentialed” by a derivation of its reliability from any independently certifiable source of beliefs; even God could not do better than an epistemically circular justification of deduction.3 What we must fall back on is the spontaneity of our inclination to believe, despite our awareness that this is, from the standpoint of traditional skepticism, a bruised reed: When we contemplate the corresponding conditional of modus ponens, we just find ourselves with this powerful inclination to believe that this proposition is true, and indeed couldn’t be false. But (as we also know) such inclinations are by no means infallisble. 1 William Alston, The Reliability of Sense Perception (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1993), p. 116. 2 Ibid., p. 121. 3 Alvin Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), p.125. .............. "
http://www.philosophy.hku.hk/courses/ac/phil2130/inductionsolution.ppt Laws and theories are general statements (All Fs are Gs), but they are rarely simple generalizations from experience. Newton’s gravitational theory: Bodies attract each other with a force proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers. The law is not established by observing instances—by enumerative induction.
Solution 5: The pragmatic solution: We can’t justify induction, but we can show that it is the best method for making predictions about the future/unobserved. We can’t justify induction because we can’t know in advance whether nature is uniform. But we do know: If nature is uniform, induction will work—and—if nature is not uniform, then induction will fail
Bill Nye and Ken Ham debate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyZjX2e7Kx8 5min "... Nye : we need evidence that the rock layers can form in 4000 years...." His premise is uniformity, something that Gen.8 induction established after the flood.
http://www.berfrois.com/2015/02/sebastian-normandin-science-skepticism-steven-pinker/ Pinker admits that he doesn't know what he means with 'science'.
http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/ctlessons/lesson1.html ".... For example, many people might argue that since the sun has always risen in the east, it is necessarily the case that the sun will always rise in the east. Yet, it isn’t necessarily the case at all. It just happens to be the case and it is easy to imagine any number of things happening to the earth that could change its relationship with the sun...."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d02_xsOIXfA Inductive , deductive arguments from teachphilosophy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9GJ4965lOM Induction, deduction
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Md8JpcgwV0 argues that science is deduction, which conflicts with the majority view that science is inductive.
http://www.jahsonic.com/Induction.html ".....There are seven species of swans in the world, all pure white except for the Australian Black Swan and the South American Black-necked Swan. The first European to see a Black Swan is believed to be the Dutch sailor Antonie Caen who described the species during his visit to the Shark Bay area in 1636. Later, the Dutch explorer Willem de Vlamingh captured several birds on the Swan River, Western Australia in 1697, but many people in Europe did not believe him, as at that time it was believed that all swans were white. Three of the captured birds were taken to Batavia, where they lived for some time. However, the species wasn't reported again until the arrival of the 'First Fleet' in 1788. The Black Swan was first described scientifically by Dr. John Latham in 1790. --http://www.nzbirds.com/BlackSwan.html [Jun 2005]
No matter how many times 17th Century biologists observed white swans, and in how many different locations, there is no deductive path that can lead them to the conclusion that all swans are white. This is just as well, since, as it turned out, that conclusion would have been wrong. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Induction [Jun 2005]
Inductive reasoning maintains that if a situation holds in all observed cases, then the situation holds in all cases. So, after completing a series of experiments that support the Third Law, one is justified in maintaining that the Law holds in all cases.
Explaining why induction commonly works has been somewhat problematic. One cannot use deduction, the usual process of moving logically from premise to conclusion, because there is simply no syllogism that will allow such a move. No matter how many times 17th Century biologists observed white swans, and in how many different locations, there is no deductive path that can lead them to the conclusion that all swans are white. This is just as well, since, as it turned out, that conclusion would have been wrong. Similarly, it is at least possible that an observation will be done tomorrow that shows an occasion in which an action is not accompanied by a reaction; the same is true of any scientific law.
One answer has been to conceive of a different form of rational argument, one that does not rely on deduction. Deduction allows one to formulate a specific truth from a general truth: all crows are black; this is a crow; therefore this is black. Induction merely allows one to formulate a probability of truth from a series of specific observations: this is a crow and it is black; that is a crow and it is black; therefore our sample shows crows are black.
The problem of induction is one of considerable debate and importance in the philosophy of science: is induction indeed justified, and if so, how? --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Induction [May 2005] ..."