Scientific induction is not the way science functions.

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). First deduction is not 'induction'. That is simply false a statement regarding a smaller subset of a larger set i.e. Deductive reasoning is not inductive reasoning. Induction relies on extrapolating knowledge gained through various observations into the future. A common view but it meets the obvious problem of induction. The problem of induction still has not be met by con. 2. He created a theory to try to explain the Universe. (This is the induction) That is simply not induction, I do not think con has an actual coherent grasp of induction. If this is 'induction' then the definition of induction follows as 'a person who makes a theory to explain the universe. we know though that (a) that is an example of a specific event and (b) for reasons I will explain this does not even grasp inductive principles. Remember my method of falsification? My method is one of a coherent hypothesis which can be falsified via observation and 'risk' taking experiments. Now remember what con said earlier regarding 'it is the way we think (inductively). This definition of induction as highlighted by con cannot be true because induction by its nature is a hypothesis based on continual observation. An a-priori hypothesis not based on multiple observation is not induction. A better formulation of the example would be 1. We observe X as Y 2. We observe X as Y hundreds of times 3. Therefore X is Y That is induction, what con proposes is not scientific 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) 3. Is not an example of deduction either. 4. I agree 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). 5. Inductive probabilities do not agree with scientific induction, not to mention no figures have been presented at all. Also this is not an example of deduction. 6. This aspect makes little to no sense, sounds ad-hoc and I fail to see how it is inductive. Bear in mind that Con has sampled at least three points in which he states this is 'inductive'. No definition of induction has been made and obviously it does not match up with my definition. So in respond to con's first claim 'we are bred to believe it or function in that way'. That is simply false, Hume's physiological induction states basically what con states. As Karl Popper notes in CONJECTURES AND REFUTATIONS all animals including humans have inborn expectations about the world around themselves, they themselves have certain hypothesis that are a-priori but are not a-priori justifiable. These hypothesis' run along the falsification method I mention earlier. In which an animal falsifies his expectations via experimentation. The criterion for a scientific theory is the Falsifiability of the theory itself. The a-priori hypothesis find themselves in the instinctual practises of the animal itself. It does not work on inductive thinking when it is born, actually it never works on that principle. This is why we in fact do not think inductively and why Con's first major objection is purely false. That is the first important issue as highlighted the second is going to be an elaboration on falsification. As Popper quite rightly notes and to which my opponent ether needs to revise his view of induction or concede the argument. 1. Induction, i.e. inference based on many observations, is a myth. It is neither a psychological fact, nor a fact of ordinary life, nor one of scientific procedure. 2. The actual procedure of science is to operate with conjectures: to jump to conclusions--often after one single observation (as noticed for example by Hume and Born). 3. Repeated observations and experiments function in science as tests of our conjectures or hypotheses, i.e. as attempted refutations. 4. The mistaken belief in induction is fortified by the need for a criterion of demarcation which, it is traditionally but wrongly believed, only the inductive method can provide 5. The conception of such an inductive method, like the criterion of verifiability, implies a faulty demarcation. 6. None of this is altered in the least if we say that induction makes theories only probable rather than certain. This is exactly what Popper believes to be the function or role of science. Now if Con wants to jump on this and say that is what I am saying then, he needs to concede the debate. This is not scientific induction and if we draw our observations to my criticisms of Con's structure of scientific thinking, what is my main argument against him? He simply doesn't understand what induction and deduction is, and his arguments haphazardly draw from the wrong basis. So to relate back to Con's theory plan. 1. He experienced this universe 2. He created a theory to try to explain the Universe. (This is the induction) None of that makes any sense! We don't reason inductively firstly, secondly this is not scientific induction as we know it, and thirdly creating a theory is not induction either! So Con is both ignoring scientific induction in which he has to defend and also mixing up the words 'induction' and 'deduction'. He has also given a poor model of falsification, Poppers is far more coherent, and in actuality Con gives a more common place view of the scientific theory, not one though that deals with induction. 'My claim is not that induction can be proven to work, except through falsification which relies on induction in the first place' Well Con concedes the debate then. My theory of falsification as highlighted does not feature induction, so con either is not well equipped to deal with my theory or is ignoring it by stating 'falsification relies on induction. Unless con wants to defend Hume's psychological induction, but I have already refuted that claim. Con then presents a very loose belief that I or Popper defend a theory which can give a 100% verification. Simply a false statement, I don't defend that nor does Popper. Con's refutation of the problem of induction is 'it would be strange if induction didn't work'. That makes little to no sense, how is that a refutation or a solution? Induction doesn't 'do anything'. The world we live in does not function because either induction or deduction is true, those are concepts we have, not physical elements, con is confusing quite allot of things now. . We assume three basic axioms the law of non contradiction, the future will be like the past, and our senses are trustworthy. The last two are simply not true in the slightest, I do not believe my senses are entirely trustworthy, no one does. Everyone has been tricked by our senses, the senses are generally reliable but stating they are trustworthy, would entails they work without fail. Con simple does not elaborate on his points enough, so we can't even get a bearing of what he is writing. The fact he says 'we assume the future is like the past' is just a bit naive, I have spent the last two rounds, continually stating that is not logically validated and secondly I already stated that Hume's psychological induction is false. Con's validation of the trustworthy of our senses is that 'try to stop sensing' as if that validates it. '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.' That is falsification, and that is also the problem of what you are defending. In conclusion I am confused, apart from very incoherent ramblings about our senses, washy washy comments like 'that is the way we are' or 'stop sensing or thinking' con doesn't both defending anything he has to. He leaps constantly to falsification, to induction to deduction. I express wonder as he doesn't even understand these three concepts. He thinks falsification is induction, but it isn't. He believes all theories are 'induction' not even examples of the products of inductive thinking and then finally he admits to all the problems of induction, and tries to defend my view, but then blatantly tries to say 'but that is induction. Con needs to reform all his arguments or concede, because apart from expanding my theory and refuting the more obvious issues with his arguments, he appears to not be able to defend his side.