Scientific induction is not the way science functions.

Con offers what can be called Hume's physiological induction principle. This is a theory or principle that sets out to state that humans are inherently inductive thinkers by means of nature observation, more observation and hypothesis formed via the collective observations. Con believes we are bred to think in this manner, in a sort of natural inductivist mindset. I will explain why this is false after I have pointed out the obvious statements by con in which I will deal with. Secondly Con offers not a single argument or logical proof to validate that inductive thinking is the way in which science should operate. Con also has not bothered to deal with the actual problem of induction in which this problem arises, merely stating that lots of people accept it or we are bred to accept it, is not a valid proof. Con must discuss the problem of induction and its relation to science, then Con must deal with my view of falsification and finally he may defend his original statements which I have attempted to refute. Induction very simply is that we can take a finite number of observations and from then we extrapolate into the future and present by stating that the observations are universal or will continue in the same manner as the observations we have observed. So some copper conducts electricity therefore all copper conducts electricity, under induction this is formulated as if we observe numerous amounts of copper conduction electricity, we form a hypothesis thereby stating 'copper conducts electricity'. Every 'observation' is a validation or extra proof of the hypothesis. Now the problem of induction is quite simple, and as Hume writes 'Presupposing that a sequence of events in the future will occur as it always has in the past' is not supported by any logical proposition or argument. To assume this holds true is to wishfully think that it will and not because of strong logical principles. Con must address this argument and for lack of better words, sort out the problem in light of scientific discovery. Now since this is a debate, neither of us are allowed to simply go (x) scientist did it via induction or deduction therefore 'science works that way', no a valid proof would be (x) scientist did it this way and here is the logical proof to validate why it is a better or stronger way in which we do science. My view is that science works on a method of falsification. Basically it works on a principle in which we avoid the problem of induction via a general hypothesis that takes risks in predictability. The risk therefore can be considered a validation of the evidence, if in fact the risk can falsify it. Einstein's theory of relativity has a huge risk placed onto it when it risked its validity via a falsification method. It predicted a certain astronomical event in which light would bend around the Sun's gravity and objects obscured behind it would be visible. Now this risk was a validation or proof of the experiment due to a falsification risk. Science therefore should not work on the principles of induction but rather deductive falsification as the criterion for what makes a theory scientific. This relates to what one can call pseudo-science vs. actual science. On the inductive principles anything can be validated as science because it can be inductively inferred by all the minor evidence. As I have shown this causes problems but another problem is that some 'theories' cannot be proven wrong. A small example God causes earthquakes. A bad earthquake means he is angry but if someone is saved a week after, then it is God's mercy. It lacks falsification. A simple example I am sure but the principle is explained. In my second part I will take about Hume's psychological induction and expand my theory further.