3 ms·
> 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 Inductio
by c0achmcguirk 11y 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 11y agoHow 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]