5 ms·
Does the scientific method rely on the Inductive Principle? How would you prove the IP without relying on the IP? If you believe something that can't be proven
by c0achmcguirk 11y ago
Does the scientific method rely on the Inductive Principle? How would you prove the IP without relying on the IP?
If you believe something that can't be proven, what do you call it?
- bduerst 11y agoNo, it doesn't. The scientific method seeks to refute existing knowledge by testing falsifiable theories and predictions. Faith is an opinion on a belief that is not falsifiable.
- c0achmcguirk 11y agoScience doesn't depend on the Inductive Principle? The idea that nature is uniform doesn't inform Science? How would you test falsifiable theories and predictions if nature weren't uniform?
- bduerst 11y agoThat's what I just said, followed with what it's focus is which you ignored. Since you have a lot of questions and I don't really have the time to give a history lesson in science philosophy, you should read Conjectures and Refutations by Karl Popper if you are genuinely earnest with your inquiries to learn more.
- c0achmcguirk 11y agoI always thought Popper's LSD was considered his best book to read on this. I haven't read it yet, but it's been on my To-Read list for a while. Popper's view essentially boils down to: "Science can't prove anything, theories can only be corroborated." So we just have a list of theories, where some are firmer than others, correct? My complaint with Popper is that true knowledge is impossible with this set of axioms. One can't know anything with certainty--and yet everyone actually lives as if they can know something. I find people that subscribe to Popper's (and Hume and Russell before him) to be hypocrites as they interact with the natural world. Operating with a set of theories that could never be 100% certain, yet acting as if they were. How sure are you that you're correct and I'm wrong? 40% or 60%?