Despite the wonderfully dismissive tone of your post, it seems like you don't know what the term 'inductive reasoning' means. > Inductive reasoning works relia

Despite the wonderfully dismissive tone of your post, it seems like you don't know what the term 'inductive reasoning' means. > Inductive reasoning works reliably in mathematics Mathematics does not use inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is not logically valid. Perhaps you have confused 'inductive reasoning' with 'the method of induction'. While there are some shared root words they are not related concepts. 'The method of induction' uses deductive reasoning, as does every mathematical proof. There are no exceptions to this, see: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mathematics-nondeductive/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mathematics-nondeductive/ . Mathematicians might look at examples or write computer programs to explore a problem, but when it comes time to write a proof there is no such thing as a non-deductive proof. > In fact, we have found our models to be violated by nature over and over, This doesn't even disagree with anything I have said. > You may insist that red shift is not caused by universal expansion I'm not insisting that red shift is not caused by universal expansion. I'm insisting that expansion, if it exists, violates the conservation of energy. The conservation of energy is extremely well established in that we can't find exceptions to it locally. Meanwhile expansion is extremely hard to study, and relies on connecting long chains of measurements for which we cannot reliably estimate the accuracy of. I simply think that it is more likely, as a matter of prognostication, that it will turn out the distance ladder has significant corrections or that one of the basic assumptions underlining expansion (for example that the universe is homogeneous or isotropic outside of the visible universe) ends up being overturned.