Lost marbles (Introduction)

by George Jelliss , Crewe, Thursday, October 29, 2009, 20:35 (5503 days ago) @ xeno6696

xeno wrote: "Part of where my problem comes in, is that induction has never been proven right. (Or wrong.) We know it works but can't explain why. It doesn't follow the same rules as deduction. This is similar to the creationist argument that says "because science can't prove itself, it must be rejected." However, the problem of induction is still a very open question in the study of logic. It turns out that the practical benefits of science (it works without needing to know why) outweigh the negative arguments against induction." -I'd like to put in a good word for induction. It is essentially the way science works. We look at the facts, the data, and collect as many different cases as possible, and then try to fit a theory or formula to the data, and then work out the consequences of these, and go back to testing whether the predictions agree with nature. I don't see that there is any problem with the logic involved. It worked for people like Humphrey Davy, Michael Faraday and Louis Pasteur, and its still valid today.-The problem with the examples cited by DT in this thread is that they are not based on induction but are in the realms of pure speculation, if not fantasy. They are more akin to the speculations of the pre-Socratic philosophers. Perhaps it is due in part to the power of modern mathematics to generate unlimited models that will fit the data. -It is then necessary to apply other criteria, such as Ockham's razor, or aesthetic considerations, or plain common sense, to prevent us being carried away with imagination, until such time as we have more empirical data.

--
GPJ