Science requires the uniformity of nature

AveIntroduction and frameworkI’ll start off my opening round with two main points. The first point is how Hume’s problem of induction has created problems for any epistemology based on inductive reasoning. The second point is an explanation of how a scientific epistemology can be formed that does not depend on inductive reasoning and inductive generalization. The first point is for historical context and isn’t an argument about the resolution. The second point, however, negates the argument presented by Pro in support of the resolution.Hume and InductionDavid Hume demonstrated the huge problems with inductive reasoning when he wrote A Treatise of Human Nature [1]. Hume pointed out that all inductive reasoning contains a missing premise which has gone unjustified. This premise is what Hume called the ‘’uniformity of nature’’. This unjustified premise, according to Hume, states that “instances of which we have had no experience, must resemble those of which we have had experience, and that the course of nature continues always uniformly the same”. Most philosophers agree that Hume decisively proved this assumption could not be proven deductively or causal reasoning, nor can it be proved inductively, as that would be circular. [2]There’s a comical criticism of inductive reasoning that can show its flaws. In all of my experience, when an object in motion gets pushed, it travels faster. Therefore, I can make an inductive generalization that an object in motion goes faster when it’s pushed. Imagine a book traveling at the speed of light. According to my inductive generalization, if I push the book, it will travel faster than the speed of light. This means that my inductive generalization has proven that an object can travel faster than the speed of light. Therefore, my inductive generalization has refuted the theory of relativity, one of the most proven theories in all of science.Thus begins the problem with scientific epistemology. Hume proved that induction was not a valid method of reasoning. Yet science is supposed to be inductive! How can the two be reconciled?Scientific epistemology In comes Karl Popper. Karl Popper agreed with Hume and his supporters on the problem of induction. He even rejected the argument that, despite the flaws in inductive reasoning, it can still give us reliable or probable results.[3] His goal was to form a scientific epistemology that did not depend on inductive reasoning. He outlined this new epistemology in The Logic of Scientific Discovery [4]. He writes that ‘’The theory to be developed in the following pages stands directly opposed to all attempts to operate with the ideas of inductive logic.’’[5]. This new scientific epistemology is known as the theory of falsificationism. The first step is to form a hypothesis. It should be checked to see if it is internally consistent (not self-contradictory). If it is, then the hypothesis should be abandoned. If it is not, then you move onto the next step. ‘’From a new idea, put up tentatively, and not yet justified in any way--an anticipation, a hypothesis, a theoretical system, or what you will--conclusions are drawn by logical deduction. These conclusions are then compared with one another and with other relevant statements, so as to find what logical relations (such as equivalence, derivability, compatibility, or incompatibility) exist between them.’’ [6] The second step is to form what Popper calls an ‘’axiomatized system’’. This is when you state the necessary assumptions of the hypothesis, and nothing more (you can’t state extra and unnecessary assumptions). “This, I believe, is the reason why the form of a rigorous system is aimed at. It is the form of a so-called ‘axiomatized system’—the form which Hilbert, for example, was able to give to certain branches of theoretical physics. The attempt is made to collect all the assumptions which are needed, but no more, to form the apex of the system. They are usually called the ‘axioms’ (or ‘postulates’, or ‘primitive propositions’; no claim to truth is implied in the term ‘axiom’ as here used). The axioms are chosen in such a way that all the other statements belonging to the theoretical system can be derived from the axioms by purely logical or mathematical transformations.” [7]This axiomatized system must meet four requirements, according to Popper.‘’(a) The system of axioms must be free from contradiction (whether self-contradiction or mutual contradiction). This is equivalent to the demand that not every arbitrarily chosen statement is deducible from it.1 (b) The system must be independent, i.e. it must not contain any axiom deducible from the remaining axioms. (In other words, a statement is to be called an axiom only if it is not deducible within the rest of the system.) These two conditions concern the axiom system as such; as regards the relation of the axiom system to the bulk of the theory, the axioms should be (c) sufficient for the deduction of all statements belonging to the theory which is to be axiomatized, and (d) necessary, for the same purpose; which means that they should contain no superfluous assumptions.’’ [8]The final step is to experiment on testable consequences of your hypothesis. If your hypothesis contradicts the evidence, then you hypothesis has been falsified. If it is confirmed by the evidence, then your hypothesis is not falsified. A hypothesis gains more support as new empirical evidence confirms it without falsifying it, and confidence in that hypothesis increases. Hypothesis that have not been unfalsified are compared by their falsifiaility. If there are more ways to falsify hypothesis A, for example, if it makes more precise predictions, then it is a better hypothesis than B, which makes less precise predictions. According to Karl Popper's falsificationism, 'Rather than progressing through theories being inductively confirmed, science actually progresses through theories being falsified via deductive reasoning'. [9]Consider the hypothesis 'all rabbits are white'. If I go out and find a rabbit that is brown, my hypothesis has been falsified. However, if I see a rabbit that is white, my hypothesis has not yet been falsified. Further sitings of white rabbits, and no sitings of non-white rabbits, will increase the confidence in my hypothesis. The hypothesis is better than a hypothesis with less specific predictions, such as 'all rabbits have a color'.Karl Popper, side-stepping Hume's problem of induction, created a philosophy of science that does not depend on inductive reasoning. This philosophy of science is employed by most scientists writing popular-level books. For example, Stephen Hawking frequently endorses Karl Popper's philosophy in his books. [10] Therefore, P2 of the argument is false. Science is not inductive. Any scientific epistemology that is inductive has been refuted by Hume.ValeReferences1: http://www.davidhume.org...2: http://plato.stanford.edu... 3: The Logic of Scientific Discovery, pg 6‘’My own view is that the various difficulties of inductive logic here sketched are insurmountable. So also, I fear, are those inherent in the doctrine, so widely current today, that inductive inference, although not ‘strictly valid’, can attain some degree of ‘reliability’ or of ‘probability’.’’4: http://s-f-walker.org.uk...5: The Logic of Scientific Discovery, pg 66: The Logic of Scientific Discovery, pg 97: The Logic of Scientific Discovery, pg 508: The Logic of Scientific Discovery, pg 519: Visual Reference Guides: Philosophy, pg 186 10: A Brief History of Time, pg 10