4 ms·

By believing in the Inductive Principle and the future will be like the past. How do you prove that? By relying on the Inductive Principle... circularity is una

By believing in the Inductive Principle and the future will be like the past. How do you prove that? By relying on the Inductive Principle... circularity is unavoidable and this is where faith comes in.

nitrogen 11y ago
It's interesting how the word "faith" has many meanings in common usage. I don't think scientists would use the word "faith" to describe their tendency to extrapolate from prior evidence. Here are a couple of articles from one particularly vocal scientist about the distinction between religious faith and scientific confidence: https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/09/06/do-scientists-have-faith-in-science/ https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/09/06/do-scien... http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/11/faith_in_science_and_religion_truth_authority_and_the_orderliness_of_nature.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201... --- I'll also note that science generally relies on empiricism rather than induction. Sure, scientists will expect the future to be similar to the past (because the present is like the past, and the past was like the more distant past, etc.), but they will also test that expectation with continued experiments.
- c0achmcguirk 10y ago
  > I'll also note that science generally relies on empiricism rather than induction I don't disagree, but how does that change my point? Empiricism and Induction both need the uniformity of nature to work. How would you prove that nature is uniform without appealing to the belief that nature is uniform?
  - nitrogen 10y ago
    How would you prove that nature is uniform without appealing to the belief that nature is uniform? You watch nature for a while, and if it behaves uniformly, then you can safely act as if it is uniform. Science doesn't operate with "proof" in the same sense as logic or mathematics. There is no "proving" that the universe didn't spontaneously come into being twenty nanoseconds ago, precisely primed for us to believe we were having this conversation. But the evidence available to us very strongly suggests a wholly materialistic universe, to the point where there is basically no practical scientific value to consider otherwise. Do you have evidence suggesting that nature is not uniform, that physics and chemistry behaved somehow differently somewhere or somewhen else?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

nitrogen 11y ago

It's interesting how the word "faith" has many meanings in common usage. I don't think scientists would use the word "faith" to describe their tendency to extrapolate from prior evidence. Here are a couple of articles from one particularly vocal scientist about the distinction between religious faith and scientific confidence: https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/09/06/do-scientists-have-faith-in-science/ https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/09/06/do-scien... http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/11/faith_in_science_and_religion_truth_authority_and_the_orderliness_of_nature.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201... --- I'll also note that science generally relies on empiricism rather than induction. Sure, scientists will expect the future to be similar to the past (because the present is like the past, and the past was like the more distant past, etc.), but they will also test that expectation with continued experiments.

c0achmcguirk 10y ago
> I'll also note that science generally relies on empiricism rather than induction I don't disagree, but how does that change my point? Empiricism and Induction both need the uniformity of nature to work. How would you prove that nature is uniform without appealing to the belief that nature is uniform?
- nitrogen 10y ago
  How would you prove that nature is uniform without appealing to the belief that nature is uniform? You watch nature for a while, and if it behaves uniformly, then you can safely act as if it is uniform. Science doesn't operate with "proof" in the same sense as logic or mathematics. There is no "proving" that the universe didn't spontaneously come into being twenty nanoseconds ago, precisely primed for us to believe we were having this conversation. But the evidence available to us very strongly suggests a wholly materialistic universe, to the point where there is basically no practical scientific value to consider otherwise. Do you have evidence suggesting that nature is not uniform, that physics and chemistry behaved somehow differently somewhere or somewhen else?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]