Scientific induction is not the way science functions.

My main argument will be that falsification relies on induction, and that induction is only our primary source of knowledge from which deductive arguments can be made. These deductive arguments or theories can then either be falsified or verified through induction. First I will address the case of Einstein for the sake of argument. I will break up what he did into steps so that it can be examined bit by bit. 1. He experienced this universe 2. He created a theory to try to explain the Universe. (This is the induction) 3. He made a prediction with his theory about the future. (This is the Deduction based on the law discovered by induction). 4. His theory correctly predicted what would happen.(This is Falsification) 5. We calculate that the odds of him randomly predicting this event is very small, so we conclude that his theory is right. (This is deduction). 6. We have some idea of how likely something could be randomly predicted. (this is induction). My claim is not that induction can be proven to work, except through falsification which relies on induction in the first place. There is no way to prove a theory of knowledge to be true, because you must first assume that theory of knowledge in order to know which theory of knowledge is correct. Whether it be Plato's theory of remembrance, or induction. We are trapped in Descartes' isolated mind problem. I think the key to life is to take that first leap of faith, and trust your senses. This is why I don't believe in capitol T Truth. But I think a world in which induction would not work would be so strange that we either couldn't exist in it, or things would be so unpredictable that we would know that we live in the world. The great thing about the human mind is that it can create truth out of a world that lacks it. We assume three basic axioms the law of non contradiction, the future will be like the past, and our senses are trustworthy. without these we cannot know anything. Our minds cannot actually function without these laws either. Try to imagine a circle with corners, or a world where absolutely nothing is the same from one second to the next. Or try to stop sensing, or thinking for that matter. These things are forced upon us biologically, and we trust them because we have to. Also because evolution deemed it this way. Also I would like to point out a flaw in falsification. It assumes that some form of risk calculus is possible. The universe could be adhering to our theories, or it could pick favorites and validate their theories for a while. Or you could be the only person, and the only theories that are presented to you are the ones some operator thinks will make you happiest. None of these theories can have a lower probability placed on them than the scenario where there is a real world out there and you found a theory that describes it. This is because with no reference to the amount of times something happens in comparison to other things to approximate a probability. It may have happened that the Universe was following Einstein theory that one day they tested it. The only way to make his theory into a law is to use induction. Einstein himself said this when he proclaimed that one thousand tests couldn't prove his theory right but one could prove it wrong. That is Induction.