3 ms·

Your claim was that we can only know about reality through inductive reasoning, and this is the part I'm disputing, not that science itself is not inductive. M

Your claim was that we can only know about reality through inductive reasoning, and this is the part I'm disputing, not that science itself is not inductive. Mathematical reasoning is deductive, and mathematics is part of reality.

corethree 3y ago
> Your claim was that we can only know about reality through inductive reasoning, and this is the part I'm disputing, not that science itself is not inductive. My claim still stands resolute in dispute of your claim. You can't know anything through probability/inductive reasoning. At best you can say something is "probably" true, but even this is a limit that's impossible to reach. If you observe something 1 billion times and that observation confirms your hypothesis, you never know if the next 10 trillion observations can deny your hypothesis completely. So even saying something is "probably true" can't even be done. Nothing can be truly known in science and therefore reality as we know it. >Mathematical reasoning is deductive, and mathematics is part of reality. It's only part of reality in the same way a fantasy novel is part of reality. It just so happens that it matches our observations. But observations are not always the same or consistent, how will you verify logic and math consistently hold true in reality? You would recursively use stats and science to determine it's veracity which suffers from the same issue as I stated above... you can't prove anything to be true with science. Math and logic is an axiom of reality. We simply assume it to be true and there's no way to prove that it's true. But here's the kicker. EVEN if we assume science and logic to be true, we STILL can't prove anything to be true in reality. This is because of exactly what I'm talking about above... we can never know the true sample size of all possible observations... any amount of observations or samples we have is finite, but the universe is unknown and samples are potentially infinite. Therefore any sample could be 1/1000000000 of what's out there. I'm not making any of this up. This is real stuff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability Quotation from the article: "One of the questions in the scientific method is: how does one move from observations to scientific laws? This is the problem of induction. Suppose we want to put the hypothesis that all swans are white to the test. We come across a white swan. We cannot validly argue (or induce) from "here is a white swan" to "all swans are white"; doing so would require a logical fallacy such as, for example, affirming the consequent.[4]"
- corethree 3y ago
  This is a more direct link to what I'm talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

corethree 3y ago

> Your claim was that we can only know about reality through inductive reasoning, and this is the part I'm disputing, not that science itself is not inductive. My claim still stands resolute in dispute of your claim. You can't know anything through probability/inductive reasoning. At best you can say something is "probably" true, but even this is a limit that's impossible to reach. If you observe something 1 billion times and that observation confirms your hypothesis, you never know if the next 10 trillion observations can deny your hypothesis completely. So even saying something is "probably true" can't even be done. Nothing can be truly known in science and therefore reality as we know it. >Mathematical reasoning is deductive, and mathematics is part of reality. It's only part of reality in the same way a fantasy novel is part of reality. It just so happens that it matches our observations. But observations are not always the same or consistent, how will you verify logic and math consistently hold true in reality? You would recursively use stats and science to determine it's veracity which suffers from the same issue as I stated above... you can't prove anything to be true with science. Math and logic is an axiom of reality. We simply assume it to be true and there's no way to prove that it's true. But here's the kicker. EVEN if we assume science and logic to be true, we STILL can't prove anything to be true in reality. This is because of exactly what I'm talking about above... we can never know the true sample size of all possible observations... any amount of observations or samples we have is finite, but the universe is unknown and samples are potentially infinite. Therefore any sample could be 1/1000000000 of what's out there. I'm not making any of this up. This is real stuff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability Quotation from the article: "One of the questions in the scientific method is: how does one move from observations to scientific laws? This is the problem of induction. Suppose we want to put the hypothesis that all swans are white to the test. We come across a white swan. We cannot validly argue (or induce) from "here is a white swan" to "all swans are white"; doing so would require a logical fallacy such as, for example, affirming the consequent.[4]"

corethree 3y ago
This is a more direct link to what I'm talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction