The Instigator
dannyc
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
bitterherbs
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Scientific induction is not the way science functions.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/26/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 879 times Debate No: 41266
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

dannyc

Pro

I am arguing that scientific induction is simply not valid. It cannot provide a logical grounding for beliefs in laws/theories/hypothesises and that induction itself is logically impossible to reconcile with science.

Firstly I will be talking about induction and then an alternative theory as proposed by Karl Popper called falsification.

For a very quick summary of induction in science, I will give a quick example. Say we observe an apple growing on a tree. We observe millions of apples growing on trees, we collect this information into a inductive format. So we say that all apples therefore grow on trees. It is more or less an accumulative observational process to then come up with a theory. As noted in more scientific books

Observation.

Hypothesis.

More observation of the first kind.

Theory from the observations.
bitterherbs

Con

Everything even falsification is based on fallacy's. The law of non contradiction cannot be proven without assuming it. That is why I don't believe in truth and just look for what works. Why believe what has worked in the past will work in the future? Because that is how we as humans are bread to think. Maybe some day the present will cease being like the past, but we complex life forms won't have to worry about it. So I propose that you drink the Kool-Aid and accept induction like the rest of us.
Debate Round No. 1
dannyc

Pro

Con offers what can be called Hume's physiological induction principle. This is a theory or principle that sets out to state that humans are inherently inductive thinkers by means of nature observation, more observation and hypothesis formed via the collective observations. Con believes we are bred to think in this manner, in a sort of natural inductivist mindset. I will explain why this is false after I have pointed out the obvious statements by con in which I will deal with.

Secondly Con offers not a single argument or logical proof to validate that inductive thinking is the way in which science should operate. Con also has not bothered to deal with the actual problem of induction in which this problem arises, merely stating that lots of people accept it or we are bred to accept it, is not a valid proof. Con must discuss the problem of induction and its relation to science, then Con must deal with my view of falsification and finally he may defend his original statements which I have attempted to refute.

Induction very simply is that we can take a finite number of observations and from then we extrapolate into the future and present by stating that the observations are universal or will continue in the same manner as the observations we have observed. So some copper conducts electricity therefore all copper conducts electricity, under induction this is formulated as if we observe numerous amounts of copper conduction electricity, we form a hypothesis thereby stating 'copper conducts electricity'. Every 'observation' is a validation or extra proof of the hypothesis.

Now the problem of induction is quite simple, and as Hume writes 'Presupposing that a sequence of events in the future will occur as it always has in the past' is not supported by any logical proposition or argument. To assume this holds true is to wishfully think that it will and not because of strong logical principles. Con must address this argument and for lack of better words, sort out the problem in light of scientific discovery.

Now since this is a debate, neither of us are allowed to simply go (x) scientist did it via induction or deduction therefore 'science works that way', no a valid proof would be (x) scientist did it this way and here is the logical proof to validate why it is a better or stronger way in which we do science.

My view is that science works on a method of falsification. Basically it works on a principle in which we avoid the problem of induction via a general hypothesis that takes risks in predictability. The risk therefore can be considered a validation of the evidence, if in fact the risk can falsify it.

Einstein's theory of relativity has a huge risk placed onto it when it risked its validity via a falsification method. It predicted a certain astronomical event in which light would bend around the Sun's gravity and objects obscured behind it would be visible. Now this risk was a validation or proof of the experiment due to a falsification risk. Science therefore should not work on the principles of induction but rather deductive falsification as the criterion for what makes a theory scientific. This relates to what one can call pseudo-science vs. actual science. On the inductive principles anything can be validated as science because it can be inductively inferred by all the minor evidence. As I have shown this causes problems but another problem is that some 'theories' cannot be proven wrong. A small example God causes earthquakes. A bad earthquake means he is angry but if someone is saved a week after, then it is God's mercy. It lacks falsification. A simple example I am sure but the principle is explained.

In my second part I will take about Hume's psychological induction and expand my theory further.
bitterherbs

Con

My main argument will be that falsification relies on induction, and that induction is only our primary source of knowledge from which deductive arguments can be made. These deductive arguments or theories can then either be falsified or verified through induction.
First I will address the case of Einstein for the sake of argument. I will break up what he did into steps so that it can be examined bit by bit.
1. He experienced this universe
2. He created a theory to try to explain the Universe. (This is the induction)
3. He made a prediction with his theory about the future. (This is the Deduction based on the law discovered by induction).
4. His theory correctly predicted what would happen.(This is Falsification)
5. We calculate that the odds of him randomly predicting this event is very small, so we conclude that his theory is right. (This is deduction).
6. We have some idea of how likely something could be randomly predicted. (this is induction).

My claim is not that induction can be proven to work, except through falsification which relies on induction in the first place. There is no way to prove a theory of knowledge to be true, because you must first assume that theory of knowledge in order to know which theory of knowledge is correct. Whether it be Plato's theory of remembrance, or induction. We are trapped in Descartes' isolated mind problem.
I think the key to life is to take that first leap of faith, and trust your senses. This is why I don't believe in capitol T Truth. But I think a world in which induction would not work would be so strange that we either couldn't exist in it, or things would be so unpredictable that we would know that we live in the world. The great thing about the human mind is that it can create truth out of a world that lacks it. We assume three basic axioms the law of non contradiction, the future will be like the past, and our senses are trustworthy. without these we cannot know anything. Our minds cannot actually function without these laws either. Try to imagine a circle with corners, or a world where absolutely nothing is the same from one second to the next. Or try to stop sensing, or thinking for that matter. These things are forced upon us biologically, and we trust them because we have to. Also because evolution deemed it this way.
Also I would like to point out a flaw in falsification. It assumes that some form of risk calculus is possible. The universe could be adhering to our theories, or it could pick favorites and validate their theories for a while. Or you could be the only person, and the only theories that are presented to you are the ones some operator thinks will make you happiest. None of these theories can have a lower probability placed on them than the scenario where there is a real world out there and you found a theory that describes it. This is because with no reference to the amount of times something happens in comparison to other things to approximate a probability. It may have happened that the Universe was following Einstein theory that one day they tested it. The only way to make his theory into a law is to use induction. Einstein himself said this when he proclaimed that one thousand tests couldn't prove his theory right but one could prove it wrong. That is Induction.
Debate Round No. 2
dannyc

Pro

1. He experienced this universe

2. He created a theory to try to explain the Universe. (This is the induction)

3. He made a prediction with his theory about the future. (This is the Deduction based on the law discovered by induction).

4. His theory correctly predicted what would happen.(This is Falsification)

5. We calculate that the odds of him randomly predicting this event is very small, so we conclude that his theory is right. (This is deduction).

6. We have some idea of how likely something could be randomly predicted. (this is induction).

First deduction is not 'induction'. That is simply false a statement regarding a smaller subset of a larger set i.e. Deductive reasoning is not inductive reasoning. Induction relies on extrapolating knowledge gained through various observations into the future. A common view but it meets the obvious problem of induction. The problem of induction still has not be met by con.

2. He created a theory to try to explain the Universe. (This is the induction)
That is simply not induction, I do not think con has an actual coherent grasp of induction. If this is 'induction' then the definition of induction follows as 'a person who makes a theory to explain the universe. we know though that (a) that is an example of a specific event and (b) for reasons I will explain this does not even grasp inductive principles. Remember my method of falsification? My method is one of a coherent hypothesis which can be falsified via observation and 'risk' taking experiments. Now remember what con said earlier regarding 'it is the way we think (inductively). This definition of induction as highlighted by con cannot be true because induction by its nature is a hypothesis based on continual observation. An a-priori hypothesis not based on multiple observation is not induction. A better formulation of the example would be

1. We observe X as Y
2. We observe X as Y hundreds of times
3. Therefore X is Y

That is induction, what con proposes is not scientific induction.

3. He made a prediction with his theory about the future. (This is the Deduction based on the law discovered by induction).

4. His theory correctly predicted what would happen.(This is Falsification)

3. Is not an example of deduction either.
4. I agree

5. We calculate that the odds of him randomly predicting this event is very small, so we conclude that his theory is right. (This is deduction).
6. We have some idea of how likely something could be randomly predicted. (this is induction).

5. Inductive probabilities do not agree with scientific induction, not to mention no figures have been presented at all. Also this is not an example of deduction.

6. This aspect makes little to no sense, sounds ad-hoc and I fail to see how it is inductive.
Bear in mind that Con has sampled at least three points in which he states this is 'inductive'. No definition of induction has been made and obviously it does not match up with my definition.

So in respond to con's first claim 'we are bred to believe it or function in that way'. That is simply false, Hume's physiological induction states basically what con states. As Karl Popper notes in CONJECTURES AND REFUTATIONS all animals including humans have inborn expectations about the world around themselves, they themselves have certain hypothesis that are a-priori but are not a-priori justifiable. These hypothesis' run along the falsification method I mention earlier. In which an animal falsifies his expectations via experimentation. The criterion for a scientific theory is the Falsifiability of the theory itself. The a-priori hypothesis find themselves in the instinctual practises of the animal itself. It does not work on inductive thinking when it is born, actually it never works on that principle. This is why we in fact do not think inductively and why Con's first major objection is purely false.

That is the first important issue as highlighted the second is going to be an elaboration on falsification.
As Popper quite rightly notes and to which my opponent ether needs to revise his view of induction or concede the argument.

1. Induction, i.e. inference based on many observations, is a myth. It is neither a psychological fact, nor a fact of
ordinary life, nor one of scientific procedure.

2. The actual procedure of science is to operate with conjectures: to jump to conclusions--often after one single
observation (as noticed for example by Hume and Born).

3. Repeated observations and experiments function in science as tests of our conjectures or hypotheses, i.e. as
attempted refutations.

4. The mistaken belief in induction is fortified by the need for a criterion of demarcation which, it is traditionally but
wrongly believed, only the inductive method can provide

5. The conception of such an inductive method, like the criterion of verifiability, implies a faulty demarcation.

6. None of this is altered in the least if we say that induction makes theories only probable rather than certain.

This is exactly what Popper believes to be the function or role of science. Now if Con wants to jump on this and say that is what I am saying then, he needs to concede the debate. This is not scientific induction and if we draw our observations to my criticisms of Con's structure of scientific thinking, what is my main argument against him? He simply doesn't understand what induction and deduction is, and his arguments haphazardly draw from the wrong basis. So to relate back to Con's theory plan.

1. He experienced this universe
2. He created a theory to try to explain the Universe. (This is the induction)

None of that makes any sense! We don't reason inductively firstly, secondly this is not scientific induction as we know it, and thirdly creating a theory is not induction either!
So Con is both ignoring scientific induction in which he has to defend and also mixing up the words 'induction' and 'deduction'. He has also given a poor model of falsification, Poppers is far more coherent, and in actuality Con gives a more common place view of the scientific theory, not one though that deals with induction.
'My claim is not that induction can be proven to work, except through falsification which relies on induction in the first place'

Well Con concedes the debate then. My theory of falsification as highlighted does not feature induction, so con either is not well equipped to deal with my theory or is ignoring it by stating 'falsification relies on induction. Unless con wants to defend Hume's psychological induction, but I have already refuted that claim.

Con then presents a very loose belief that I or Popper defend a theory which can give a 100% verification. Simply a false statement, I don't defend that nor does Popper. Con's refutation of the problem of induction is 'it would be strange if induction didn't work'. That makes little to no sense, how is that a refutation or a solution? Induction doesn't 'do anything'. The world we live in does not function because either induction or deduction is true, those are concepts we have, not physical elements, con is confusing quite allot of things now.

. We assume three basic axioms the law of non contradiction, the future will be like the past, and our senses are trustworthy.

The last two are simply not true in the slightest, I do not believe my senses are entirely trustworthy, no one does. Everyone has been tricked by our senses, the senses are generally reliable but stating they are trustworthy, would entails they work without fail. Con simple does not elaborate on his points enough, so we can't even get a bearing of what he is writing. The fact he says 'we assume the future is like the past' is just a bit naive, I have spent the last two rounds, continually stating that is not logically validated and secondly I already stated that Hume's psychological induction is false. Con's validation of the trustworthy of our senses is that 'try to stop sensing' as if that validates it.
'Einstein himself said this when he proclaimed that one thousand tests couldn't prove his theory right but one could prove it wrong. That is Induction.'

That is falsification, and that is also the problem of what you are defending. In conclusion I am confused, apart from very incoherent ramblings about our senses, washy washy comments like 'that is the way we are' or 'stop sensing or thinking' con doesn't both defending anything he has to. He leaps constantly to falsification, to induction to deduction. I express wonder as he doesn't even understand these three concepts. He thinks falsification is induction, but it isn't. He believes all theories are 'induction' not even examples of the products of inductive thinking and then finally he admits to all the problems of induction, and tries to defend my view, but then blatantly tries to say 'but that is induction. Con needs to reform all his arguments or concede, because apart from expanding my theory and refuting the more obvious issues with his arguments, he appears to not be able to defend his side.
bitterherbs

Con

Before I make my argument I want to be clear on my definition of induction. The observation of an event or events, and the extrapolation of a general rule. These general rules can then be related by deduction. For the case of the singular event induction what you are doing is actually using induction and deduction. You inductively know that single events follow general rules, and are not completely random. and you deduce that this single event will have a general rule. You then and only then can guess at the rule.

The problem randomness poses to falsification is a knockdown to it being a way of attaining knowledge. How do you falsify randomness, by showing that it has order. But showing that something has order could just be a fluke in the randomness. After all random processes do have a chance of looking ordered. We cannot even say it is a small chance, because maybe all random processes look ordered. Beings the process is random it could be ordered for billions of years then switch to a different order, and then to randomness. Yes you can prove that a theory is wrong, but you could never prove one right or even likely through falsification. The only way to prove a theory likely is to buy into the lie of induction. Test it hundreds of times and say "most things that are right hundreds of times are right generally. In the end Falsification (induction looked at from a negative perspective) has the same problem as does induction. For induction you buy into the arbitrary rules that the future will be like the past, and that the world is not random. For falsification you buy into the same arbitrary rules.

My challenge to you is to positively prove any theory or show that some theory is likely without assuming either of these unjustified assumptions. And obviously to do this with the method of falsification.
My guess is that this challenge is impossible, because there is an infinite amount of possibilities for any given observation, and therefore the likeliness of any one happening is zero.

It simply does not follow that a theory that can predict a (you say) unlikely result means that it is true. It may have been a fluke or a bad measurement, or a rule for a while(we only know that the laws of physics don't change because they haven't for a long time). The only way to positively "prove" a theory is to show that it works again and again, and to admit that your theory is not 100% true. Then you can constantly try to improve your theory by modifying it according to new findings. I learned in Physics that a certain pendulum will always swing with the same period no matter how far it swings, and this used to be the rule for pendulums. They even had the equation downT=2`0;W30;(L/g), what are the odds that such an accurate equation could be wrong. Well it turns out that it is wrong. Pendulums periods do change with amplitude. The equation actually is T=2 `0;W30;(L/g)+1/16_2;^2+11/3072_2;^4. Falsification would have told us that based on how well the original theory worked, the theory was right. But we inductively found out through careful measurement that it is actually off by a magnitude of .0001 for small angle swings, And even more for large amplitude swings.

In the end the only way to find out if a theory is right is to test it. And then decide that if this theory was right this time, and the next, and one hundred times, then it is always right. This is induction.
Falsification is itself a useful method, but it is derived from and its results are proven by induction.

Sign post block 25 "This is exactly"
Firstly I don't see why you felt the need for an adhominum attack on. Also I don't think you ever refute my use of the word deduction. Are induction and Deduction the "basis" you are referring to?
My rebuttals to your arguments in order
1 saying that we don't reason inductively cannot prove that we don't reason inductively.
2 Scientific induction as we know it is far down the road once we have experienced the universe. You cannot be a scientist without first living.
3 Induction means to create a theory from a set of observations.
4. I when I said induction and deduction that is exactly what I meant. The wording does sound like that of induction, but in Einstein's case he came up with a theory and deduced that if it were true then the astronomical event would happen. Note that it is not then valid to say that if the astronomical event happens then Einstein's theory was true. If anything you could say that it is likely to be true refer to my argument above for the proof against this kind of thinking.
5. Popper's theory of falsification includes no way of calculating how improbable it is for a theory to predict any given event. It must rely on a gut feeling.
6. The scientific theory I propposed relies on induction to even get off the ground. You can make know predictions about how something will act without comparing it to already attained knowledge all of which boils down to inductive knowledge. The Idea that we come out of the womb with theories of the world and some apriori knowledge of how likely it is that these theories could predict an event if they were wrong is ridiculous.
7. I don't think there can be a way to find truth, but induction is in fact how science opperates. The Gravitational constant was not something scientists thought up when they created gravity, It was a number that happened that every time they tested gravity it was off by 6.67*10^-11 from that tested data they extrapolated that all bodies are related by this constant.
There are effectively two ways to do science. You can either start with a theory and test it a bunch and extrapolate from that data that the theory is right generally. Or you can notice a commonality between a bunch of events and extrapolate a theory from that. Either way you are using inductive reasoning.
8. I am not saying you cannot prove a theory is 100% correct through falsification. I am saying that you cannot prove a theory 1% correct, because there is no way of doing probability calculus.
9. My refutation is not that it would be strange if induction didn't work. It is that a world where induction would not work would be so random that we could not exist, or if we did we would be know that the world was so random that induction wouldn't work.
10. I never said the universe functions because of induction or deduction. I claimed we clearly don't live in a world where induction doesn't work. I am not sure what aff is responding to
Sign post last 3 blocks of text "we assume"
If you look I didn't say that your senses are absolutely trustworthy, but if you don't trust them at all you can't get anywhere in any field of study. Trustworthy does not mean that something works without fail. A person that has lied before can still be trustworthy.
If a person does not assume the future will be like the past then he cannot make a prediction. Of course it is not logically sound no knowledge can be. Like I said even the law of non contradiction is unproven.
Instead of saying that Hume's theory is false you should actually answer my arguments.
The fact that you have to trust your senses and thoughts in order to function is an adequate reason for me to trust them.
You finish with another adhominum attack. As I have explained falsification could not work without inductively gathered knowledge, and it can only be validated to probably be true inductively.
In conclusion. Falsification has four major inadequacies that inhibit it from replacing induction as our scientific method. It relies on induction to validate it's claims. It uses knowledge to create theories, and this knowledge was at base inductively gathered. Induction works without the use of falsification often. And finally there is no way of knowing how likely a theory is to be correct using solely falsification.

I got the equations for amplitude from
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
Debate Round No. 3
dannyc

Pro

These general rules can then be related by deduction'

Simply does not make any sense, I have no clue what he is proposing. Relating what?

. For the case of the singular event induction what you are doing is actually using induction and deduction.'

Singular event induction? What do you mean, do you mean extrapolating general rules via an observation? That is not induction either, and if that is not what you are trying to say, then what are you attempting to say? Using both induction and deduction? What at the same time? Or one after the other?

You inductively know that single events follow general rules, and are not completely random.

Inductively know? I have already dealt with thinking inductively mean presuppose a general rule via a singular observation, that is not relying on induction, that is tentative induction? Also what is not completely random? The universe? That is simply a claim we cannot know and cannot claim has to be true, as Popper notes what we know about the uniformity about the universe does not presuppose the necessity of the uniformity of the universe, nowhere can that inference be made.

The hilarious 'problem of randomness is not a problem in the slightest. Like I have said, we don't presume a necessary uniformity and secondly nothing about falsification presumes that uniformity exists. In fact scientific induction can't even base its inferences logically, an actual problem that again con is either ignoring or can't answer. So con still has not even bothered to solve the problem of induction negating his position therefore con has lost by sheer lack of engagement in the problem.

The only way to prove a theory likely is to buy into the lie of induction

Con has lost once again. His own position is as he has written a lie, a concession I couldn't have asked for better said.

Yes you can prove that a theory is wrong, but you could never prove one right or even likely through falsification.

Like I already allowed adequate time to explain but con who know I am sure does not understand the debate has not been able to grasp, falsification is the criterion of scientific knowledge, not the criterion of 100% validity. Secondly con has not given a falsificational test for induction nor has he even given a response to the problem of induction. What falsification provides is an actual avoidance of the problem of induction and a method in which we can test the validity of a theory, not the method in which we show absolutes. So con has provided a false problem in order to dismiss my views of falsification and then promote a method which he has called by his own words 'a lie'.

My guess is that this challenge is impossible, because there is an infinite amount of possibilities for any given observation, and therefore the likeliness of any one happening is zero.

Con again doesn't understand this debate, unfortunately for him he still cannot prove scientific induction, and fails to see his own ignorance.

'(we only know that the laws of physics don't change because they haven't for a long time'

Again noted con doesn't understand the problem of induction and this blatant display of ignorance here acknowledges that.

' and to admit that your theory is not 100% true'

I never said any theory is 100% true, but con funnily enough has contradicted himself within a few lines, note con wrote the laws don't change, then states all theories are not 100% true. Con does not know what to believe now.

But we inductively found out through careful measurement that it is actually off by a magnitude of .0001 for small angle swings, And even more for large amplitude swings.

Con says inductions is 'a lie' then claims induction actually provides true answers, this is debate is becoming seriously a test of patience as con again has expressed no understanding in any of these principles.

'test it' one hundred times, then it is always right. This is induction.

We all know what induction is but con again has failed to address the problem of induction, and now believes a 100 time experimentation should validity something as being always 'right'. Con has contradicted himself because earlier he wrote 'no theory is 100% right' now the criterion for adequacy is 100 times.

Also I don't think you ever refute my use of the word deduction. Are induction and Deduction the "basis" you are referring to?

Con never defined deduction or induction and until this point in the debate has only defined induction till now. Secondly con as I have pointed out contradicts his use of both words consistently in his second attempt to comply a coherent test for the scientific method.

1 saying that we don't reason inductively cannot prove that we don't reason inductively.

1. I spent about 2 paragraphs detailing why we do not reason or think inductively, con may be ignoring that portion of the debate, but it still remains there.

Scientific induction as we know it is far down the road once we have experienced the universe. You cannot be a scientist without first living.

Irrelevant, no one is claiming you have to 'not live' con has made a non- sequitor.

If anything you could say that it is likely to be true refer to my argument above for the proof against this kind of thinking.

No one is saying anything about 'truth or 100 % validity, con simply is making false statements.

Popper's theory of falsification includes no way of calculating how improbable it is for a theory to predict any given event. It must rely on a gut feeling.

Falsification does not claim to be a mathematical formula, that is like stating the theory of gravity does not account for how to measure right sided triangles, again not a refutation, just nonsense.

I am not saying you cannot prove a theory is 100% correct through falsification. I am saying that you cannot prove a theory 1% correct, because there is no way of doing probability calculus.

Again false, a time in the past in which a non falsified event occurred which had a theory prediction based on it, neither needs a 100% validity to prove the event did not contradict the prediction, con again does not know what he is talking about. I claimed we clearly don't live in a world where induction doesn't work. Con makes a claim about induction, doesn't back it up in the slightest. Falsification validly infers from any single counter instance the negation of a general formed hypothesis. A deductive example of the criterion of demarcation as Popper notes. A single non-instance of a proposed law or theory makes the allowance for a refutation of a general theory.

Con has wasted my time because he simply does not know what he is arguing about. I never said falsification does not use induction, I stated falsification does not rely on induction, a point con has missed altogether, due to nonsense about 'not sensing' and contradictions about using the words 'induction and deduction' or more obviously he constantly claims we cannot know anything 100% then makes stupid claims that laws and other things are right or constants because they happened in the past.

A single observation = X=Y
A general law All X=Y ( An example of tentative induction not a reliance on induction ) or even observe X, claim all X=Y, make a prediction. Con is arguing that induction is reliable)
A counter instance to falsify the claim, not all X=Y ( Falsification)
Therefore not all X=Y Deductive knowledge, by whatever probabilities as materials in the experiment.

Con doesn't understand the model of induction against the reliance of induction, as per usual he ignores my arguments.

1. Con has not dealt with the problem of induction, note the examples in his points where he actually claims induction works. Note his points on the laws of nature, contrast that with his statement induction is 'a lie'. A contradiction is noted.
2. Con claims (a) nothing can be 100% true, then note where con claims again certain things are 'right' or 'true' like the laws. Note again a contradiction
3. Note where Con admits induction is false.
4. Note where Con fails to define induction.
5 Note where Con ignores his claims that we think inductively, and then ignores my response.
6. Note where con either ignores scientific induction, which he has to defend, or instead claims falsification needs induction

So now my obvious points are in this order for ease of knowing what I wrote but also to respond to the insulting claim that I didn't argue again inductive thinking.

1. We do not reason inductively, but rather on the scientific model of falsification, note my actual argument in both my first and second response.
2. Note my model of general laws, falsified via deductive principles.
3. Note my 'use' of somewhat loose induction not to create general laws, but to create predictions or tests for falsification, not a reliance of induction which con has.
Con still needs to prove scientific induction is reliable. Like I has shown, falsification does not rely on induction, secondly we do not reason inductively.
bitterherbs

Con

Both methods of obtaining knowledge are imperfect and if you are scrupulous in your reasoning neither can prove anything. Falsification can prove something is not true but it can never tell you what is true without the use of induction. If we have to chose a method of gaining knowledge then induction must be the starting place because it provides positive knowledge.
My problem of probability remains unrefuted regardless of how many times the aff says I don't know what I am talking about.
Let me clarify on the point of single occurrence induction. It seems as if you are only using the one instance to make predictions, but all of the laws and known patterns of the universe should be counted as other instances from which you are inducing a future result.
say there is a universe of patterns where XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXO is the pattern. inductively you will guess that the next letter is an X. Through falsification you can make a theory of patterns and then look at each XO set and say it is not proven wrong. You then say that it is unlikely that this pattern is wrong based on some unfounded belief. You then conclude that the next letter is X. Both can solve this pattern, both could be wrong induction states its assumption that it is usually right but not always. Falsification seems to hide its error, its assumption, in its calculus on the likeliness of a theory being right.

If my opponent concedes that Falsification cannot provide a way of knowing how likely its predictions will be right. Then there is no way to actually gain knowledge through falsification.

I stated very clearly that I don't think there is anyway to find truth. There are two methods proposed to do science by. One has the stated assumption that things will be like they have been. The other has the unstated assumption that theories that make predictions and aren't proven wrong are probably right. Induction is more efficient because it points you in the direction of where to predict. Through falsification you must intuitively know what to make a theory about. I would question where you get this knowledge from. like I have the whole debate. A quick reminder: the resolution was not what theory of knowledge is true but rather how does science function. And at the most basic human level all knowledge starts based on induction, and from there we can build. Therefore science functions through induction because every theory assumes the inductive knowledge.

All other points I would make would be going in circles and saying what I have already, so I won't do the whole line by line. My refutation of your refutations are that if they are read next to my arguments my arguments are better.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by dannyc 3 years ago
dannyc
Good thing you toom my advice and changed everything you have been arguing for in the last two rounds. Pity you don't bother defining induction or deduction, you don't deal with the problem of induction and ignore my arguments.
Posted by dannyc 3 years ago
dannyc
Yeah I am, if I am honest I am being lazy and taking my time with my argument, I will summerise it though and probably expand it in round 2. I am not taking this debate crazy seriously so allow a little flex on what I say. If all goes well we can get into it a good bit in a second debate.
Posted by bitterherbs 3 years ago
bitterherbs
are you going to post? Btw I tried reading more on what falsification is, but it is really boring so if you could say what you mean by it that would be great.
Posted by dannyc 3 years ago
dannyc
Yeah, my views though don't refute scientific findings and I accept the theory of evolution etc.
Posted by TheOncomingStorm 3 years ago
TheOncomingStorm
No, sir, I'm on your side.
Posted by dannyc 3 years ago
dannyc
Take the debate if you like.
Posted by TheOncomingStorm 3 years ago
TheOncomingStorm
This will be an interesting debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.