Scientific induction is not the way science functions.

Before I make my argument I want to be clear on my definition of induction. The observation of an event or events, and the extrapolation of a general rule. These general rules can then be related by deduction. For the case of the singular event induction what you are doing is actually using induction and deduction. You inductively know that single events follow general rules, and are not completely random. and you deduce that this single event will have a general rule. You then and only then can guess at the rule. The problem randomness poses to falsification is a knockdown to it being a way of attaining knowledge. How do you falsify randomness, by showing that it has order. But showing that something has order could just be a fluke in the randomness. After all random processes do have a chance of looking ordered. We cannot even say it is a small chance, because maybe all random processes look ordered. Beings the process is random it could be ordered for billions of years then switch to a different order, and then to randomness. Yes you can prove that a theory is wrong, but you could never prove one right or even likely through falsification. The only way to prove a theory likely is to buy into the lie of induction. Test it hundreds of times and say "most things that are right hundreds of times are right generally. In the end Falsification (induction looked at from a negative perspective) has the same problem as does induction. For induction you buy into the arbitrary rules that the future will be like the past, and that the world is not random. For falsification you buy into the same arbitrary rules. My challenge to you is to positively prove any theory or show that some theory is likely without assuming either of these unjustified assumptions. And obviously to do this with the method of falsification. 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. It simply does not follow that a theory that can predict a (you say) unlikely result means that it is true. It may have been a fluke or a bad measurement, or a rule for a while(we only know that the laws of physics don't change because they haven't for a long time). The only way to positively "prove" a theory is to show that it works again and again, and to admit that your theory is not 100% true. Then you can constantly try to improve your theory by modifying it according to new findings. I learned in Physics that a certain pendulum will always swing with the same period no matter how far it swings, and this used to be the rule for pendulums. They even had the equation downT=2`0;W30;(L/g), what are the odds that such an accurate equation could be wrong. Well it turns out that it is wrong. Pendulums periods do change with amplitude. The equation actually is T=2 `0;W30;(L/g)+1/16_2;^2+11/3072_2;^4. Falsification would have told us that based on how well the original theory worked, the theory was right. 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. In the end the only way to find out if a theory is right is to test it. And then decide that if this theory was right this time, and the next, and one hundred times, then it is always right. This is induction. Falsification is itself a useful method, but it is derived from and its results are proven by induction. Sign post block 25 "This is exactly" Firstly I don't see why you felt the need for an adhominum attack on. Also I don't think you ever refute my use of the word deduction. Are induction and Deduction the "basis" you are referring to? My rebuttals to your arguments in order 1 saying that we don't reason inductively cannot prove that we don't reason inductively. 2 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. 3 Induction means to create a theory from a set of observations. 4. I when I said induction and deduction that is exactly what I meant. The wording does sound like that of induction, but in Einstein's case he came up with a theory and deduced that if it were true then the astronomical event would happen. Note that it is not then valid to say that if the astronomical event happens then Einstein's theory was true. 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. 5. 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. 6. The scientific theory I propposed relies on induction to even get off the ground. You can make know predictions about how something will act without comparing it to already attained knowledge all of which boils down to inductive knowledge. The Idea that we come out of the womb with theories of the world and some apriori knowledge of how likely it is that these theories could predict an event if they were wrong is ridiculous. 7. I don't think there can be a way to find truth, but induction is in fact how science opperates. The Gravitational constant was not something scientists thought up when they created gravity, It was a number that happened that every time they tested gravity it was off by 6.67*10^-11 from that tested data they extrapolated that all bodies are related by this constant. There are effectively two ways to do science. You can either start with a theory and test it a bunch and extrapolate from that data that the theory is right generally. Or you can notice a commonality between a bunch of events and extrapolate a theory from that. Either way you are using inductive reasoning. 8. 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. 9. My refutation is not that it would be strange if induction didn't work. It is that a world where induction would not work would be so random that we could not exist, or if we did we would be know that the world was so random that induction wouldn't work. 10. I never said the universe functions because of induction or deduction. I claimed we clearly don't live in a world where induction doesn't work. I am not sure what aff is responding to Sign post last 3 blocks of text "we assume" If you look I didn't say that your senses are absolutely trustworthy, but if you don't trust them at all you can't get anywhere in any field of study. Trustworthy does not mean that something works without fail. A person that has lied before can still be trustworthy. If a person does not assume the future will be like the past then he cannot make a prediction. Of course it is not logically sound no knowledge can be. Like I said even the law of non contradiction is unproven. Instead of saying that Hume's theory is false you should actually answer my arguments. The fact that you have to trust your senses and thoughts in order to function is an adequate reason for me to trust them. You finish with another adhominum attack. As I have explained falsification could not work without inductively gathered knowledge, and it can only be validated to probably be true inductively. In conclusion. Falsification has four major inadequacies that inhibit it from replacing induction as our scientific method. It relies on induction to validate it's claims. It uses knowledge to create theories, and this knowledge was at base inductively gathered. Induction works without the use of falsification often. And finally there is no way of knowing how likely a theory is to be correct using solely falsification. I got the equations for amplitude from http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...