Scientific induction is not the way science functions.

These general rules can then be related by deduction' Simply does not make any sense, I have no clue what he is proposing. Relating what? . For the case of the singular event induction what you are doing is actually using induction and deduction.' Singular event induction? What do you mean, do you mean extrapolating general rules via an observation? That is not induction either, and if that is not what you are trying to say, then what are you attempting to say? Using both induction and deduction? What at the same time? Or one after the other? You inductively know that single events follow general rules, and are not completely random. Inductively know? I have already dealt with thinking inductively mean presuppose a general rule via a singular observation, that is not relying on induction, that is tentative induction? Also what is not completely random? The universe? That is simply a claim we cannot know and cannot claim has to be true, as Popper notes what we know about the uniformity about the universe does not presuppose the necessity of the uniformity of the universe, nowhere can that inference be made. The hilarious 'problem of randomness is not a problem in the slightest. Like I have said, we don't presume a necessary uniformity and secondly nothing about falsification presumes that uniformity exists. In fact scientific induction can't even base its inferences logically, an actual problem that again con is either ignoring or can't answer. So con still has not even bothered to solve the problem of induction negating his position therefore con has lost by sheer lack of engagement in the problem. The only way to prove a theory likely is to buy into the lie of induction Con has lost once again. His own position is as he has written a lie, a concession I couldn't have asked for better said. Yes you can prove that a theory is wrong, but you could never prove one right or even likely through falsification. Like I already allowed adequate time to explain but con who know I am sure does not understand the debate has not been able to grasp, falsification is the criterion of scientific knowledge, not the criterion of 100% validity. Secondly con has not given a falsificational test for induction nor has he even given a response to the problem of induction. What falsification provides is an actual avoidance of the problem of induction and a method in which we can test the validity of a theory, not the method in which we show absolutes. So con has provided a false problem in order to dismiss my views of falsification and then promote a method which he has called by his own words 'a lie'. My guess is that this challenge is impossible, because there is an infinite amount of possibilities for any given observation, and therefore the likeliness of any one happening is zero. Con again doesn't understand this debate, unfortunately for him he still cannot prove scientific induction, and fails to see his own ignorance. '(we only know that the laws of physics don't change because they haven't for a long time' Again noted con doesn't understand the problem of induction and this blatant display of ignorance here acknowledges that. ' and to admit that your theory is not 100% true' I never said any theory is 100% true, but con funnily enough has contradicted himself within a few lines, note con wrote the laws don't change, then states all theories are not 100% true. Con does not know what to believe now. But we inductively found out through careful measurement that it is actually off by a magnitude of .0001 for small angle swings, And even more for large amplitude swings. Con says inductions is 'a lie' then claims induction actually provides true answers, this is debate is becoming seriously a test of patience as con again has expressed no understanding in any of these principles. 'test it' one hundred times, then it is always right. This is induction. We all know what induction is but con again has failed to address the problem of induction, and now believes a 100 time experimentation should validity something as being always 'right'. Con has contradicted himself because earlier he wrote 'no theory is 100% right' now the criterion for adequacy is 100 times. Also I don't think you ever refute my use of the word deduction. Are induction and Deduction the "basis" you are referring to? Con never defined deduction or induction and until this point in the debate has only defined induction till now. Secondly con as I have pointed out contradicts his use of both words consistently in his second attempt to comply a coherent test for the scientific method. 1 saying that we don't reason inductively cannot prove that we don't reason inductively. 1. I spent about 2 paragraphs detailing why we do not reason or think inductively, con may be ignoring that portion of the debate, but it still remains there. Scientific induction as we know it is far down the road once we have experienced the universe. You cannot be a scientist without first living. Irrelevant, no one is claiming you have to 'not live' con has made a non- sequitor. If anything you could say that it is likely to be true refer to my argument above for the proof against this kind of thinking. No one is saying anything about 'truth or 100 % validity, con simply is making false statements. Popper's theory of falsification includes no way of calculating how improbable it is for a theory to predict any given event. It must rely on a gut feeling. Falsification does not claim to be a mathematical formula, that is like stating the theory of gravity does not account for how to measure right sided triangles, again not a refutation, just nonsense. I am not saying you cannot prove a theory is 100% correct through falsification. I am saying that you cannot prove a theory 1% correct, because there is no way of doing probability calculus. Again false, a time in the past in which a non falsified event occurred which had a theory prediction based on it, neither needs a 100% validity to prove the event did not contradict the prediction, con again does not know what he is talking about. I claimed we clearly don't live in a world where induction doesn't work. Con makes a claim about induction, doesn't back it up in the slightest. Falsification validly infers from any single counter instance the negation of a general formed hypothesis. A deductive example of the criterion of demarcation as Popper notes. A single non-instance of a proposed law or theory makes the allowance for a refutation of a general theory. Con has wasted my time because he simply does not know what he is arguing about. I never said falsification does not use induction, I stated falsification does not rely on induction, a point con has missed altogether, due to nonsense about 'not sensing' and contradictions about using the words 'induction and deduction' or more obviously he constantly claims we cannot know anything 100% then makes stupid claims that laws and other things are right or constants because they happened in the past. A single observation = X=Y A general law All X=Y ( An example of tentative induction not a reliance on induction ) or even observe X, claim all X=Y, make a prediction. Con is arguing that induction is reliable) A counter instance to falsify the claim, not all X=Y ( Falsification) Therefore not all X=Y Deductive knowledge, by whatever probabilities as materials in the experiment. Con doesn't understand the model of induction against the reliance of induction, as per usual he ignores my arguments. 1. Con has not dealt with the problem of induction, note the examples in his points where he actually claims induction works. Note his points on the laws of nature, contrast that with his statement induction is 'a lie'. A contradiction is noted. 2. Con claims (a) nothing can be 100% true, then note where con claims again certain things are 'right' or 'true' like the laws. Note again a contradiction 3. Note where Con admits induction is false. 4. Note where Con fails to define induction. 5 Note where Con ignores his claims that we think inductively, and then ignores my response. 6. Note where con either ignores scientific induction, which he has to defend, or instead claims falsification needs induction So now my obvious points are in this order for ease of knowing what I wrote but also to respond to the insulting claim that I didn't argue again inductive thinking. 1. We do not reason inductively, but rather on the scientific model of falsification, note my actual argument in both my first and second response. 2. Note my model of general laws, falsified via deductive principles. 3. Note my 'use' of somewhat loose induction not to create general laws, but to create predictions or tests for falsification, not a reliance of induction which con has. Con still needs to prove scientific induction is reliable. Like I has shown, falsification does not rely on induction, secondly we do not reason inductively.