:
: : Induction is not logically compelling
: : Science is based on induction
: : therefore science is not logical.: Induction is not totally compelling, but it has worked to date.
: This does not mean that it is always going to work; but the same can be applied to any posited axiom you care to mention.
: Will you therefore take the path of Russell's lunatic?
: If you accept that the world exists, as you do, then the inductive method is the one with the fewest unproveables; it is entirely self-consistent.
: This might not satisify the logical purist seeking the Platonic Form he or she calls 'logic'; but a moderately logical model is logically more sound than a totally alogical one.
: Define 'compelling'; define 'logic'
: If you want to be totally consistent, try defining them without reference to any physical observation point.
: You can't. Logic is based on science; it's an abstraction of observed science.
: So *of course* science isn't perfect in logical terms; in the same way that a real-world circle is never perfectly round; the concept of 'roundness' is an abstraction of a concept from physical observation.
: Science is the act of making models that describe the observed world; the logic is the mechanism on which the model is based.
: When a model is shown to be faulty, it is revised or discarded; this process occurs in what Kuhn calls a 'crisis in science'; the competing models are weighed in the balance and the lesser is found wanting.
: (Of course, as Kuhn and Lakatos pointed out, this isn't always the case in the sociological human world, but...)
: The best scientific model is the one that most simply explains all scientific observations.
: (Examine Popper's answer to the Quine-Duhem thesis.)
: Induction comes before logic; not after it. So your three lines should read;
: 1. There appears to be a 'real world'. This is inductive.
: 2. Distillation of what appear to be common 'rules' leads to a system of 'logic'
: 3. A scientific theory is a self-consistent one that agrees with all evidence provided by points 1 and 2.
: Gideon.
: (I'll reply more on the Popper post when I've the time; I'm at work.)
You state that "the best scientific model is the one that most simply explains all scientific observations."
Are you implying that this test also makes those models the RIGHT models?
