:
: : 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.
Piper: Induction is NOT logically compelling in the sense that inductive conclusions do not follow necessarily from a premise.
: 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.
Piper: Induction is (at best) rational. I.e. it is rational to believe in something concluded from a strong inductive inference. Similary it is irrational not to believe something derived from a strong inductive inference. It is not however alogical not to believe something derived from an inductive conclusion (as the conclusion is not necessary).
: Will you therefore take the path of Russell's lunatic?
Piper: To do that i would, i believe, have to deny thta induction is rational. Although i have yet to see a satisfactory proof that shows induction is in facvt rational (the inductive proof of induction is the best i have seen and i am not sure that this shows induction to be rational), i do think it is so.
: 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.
Piper: logic is mathematical, not an abstration of science. Observed science is inductive. I do not understand how you could even put this forward gideon. Deductive logic originated with the greeks. Induction, the basis of modern science had its (articulated) origins in the writings of Bacon and Descarte.
: 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.
The mechanism is based on induction which is rational, not logical.
: 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.
Piper: "Kuhn? *spits*". (I don't mind what you'cve said there too much, just don't start going on about 'incommensuarability' etc...)
: (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.
Piper: Yes, as long as you realise that it is only rational, not logically necessary.
: (Examine Popper's answer to the Quine-Duhem thesis.)
: Induction comes before logic; not after it. So your three lines should read;
Piper: yes, it is true that most deduction can be traced back to induction via the premises.
: 1. There appears to be a 'real world'. This is inductive.
Piper: Yes.
: 2. Distillation of what appear to be common 'rules' leads to a system of 'logic'
Piper: No, the truths of mathematics are a priori. Distillation of common rules is induction.
: 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.)
