The Question of Why

[Cinjin]

... is there a statement that can withstand the question 'why?'?

Statement: There is no reason why.

[The Grand Nudger]

There is a distinct difference between reason and purpose. Reason infers causality, while purpose infers meaning.

Causality is observed through science but will ultimately fall back on to inductive assumption of cause (committing a deductive fallacy) - This was the aim of my hypothesis. The most prominent image of this occurring is 'cogito ergo sum' - essentially 'this is true, therefore this is the cause'. This simply does not work if one is trying to deductively prove a cause. One cannot observe a conclusion and induce a cause and say it is proof of the cause. As any mathematician would tell you, it only takes one counter example to negate a proof, so while science may think it knows the cause, it may change at any time as knowledge grows.

Maybe you should stop inferring things and demonstrate them? That would put a wrench in the gears of the why train, now wouldn't it?

"Blah blah blah, inductive reasoning, the basis of scientific theory, is a logical fallacy." Canaries in the mines. Satellites aren't falling out of the sky on the basis of their operation being comprised entirely of a logical fallacy. You see, one cannot prove anything logically with induction, but it's fairly easy to demonstrate that the results of induction can be factually accurate.....so long as you have evidence. Of course our knowledge changes as the data available to us changes. Way to state the blisteringly obvious. That's no criticism of science at all, that's exactly how it is designed to work.

[Perhaps]

Maybe you should stop inferring things and demonstrate them? That would put a wrench in the gears of the why train, now wouldn't it?

"Blah blah blah, inductive reasoning, the basis of scientific theory, is a logical fallacy." Canaries in the mines. Satellites aren't falling out of the sky on the basis of their operation being comprised entirely of a logical fallacy. You see, one cannot prove anything logically with induction, but it's fairly easy to demonstrate that the results of induction can be factually accurate.....so long as you have evidence. Of course our knowledge changes as the data available to us changes. Way to state the blisteringly obvious. That's no criticism of science at all, that's exactly how it is designed to work.

I was never criticizing science. Instead of attacking me everytime I post something, Rhythm, maybe you should read and try to determine the purpose. I am defending my hypothesis. The fact that science works, does not change the fact that it is induced. It is an assumption which is verified with evidence. It's stength is that it is meant to be criticized, no argument there, but do not state that it determines truths or facts, unless you specify that those truths and facts are relative to the time and knowledge available.

[The Grand Nudger]

Similarly, the fact that is induced does not change the fact that it works. I've never made the claim that science determines truth, in fact I've corrected you on this abuse of language in service of argument more than once, in more than one thread.

[Perhaps]

What was the point in commenting on this one If I never made that claim?

[The Grand Nudger]

Demonstrate that there is such a thing as a "point".....

LOL, it's a discussion forum Perhaps. When you post, you put your words out there, others will comment.

[Perhaps]

Perhaps there is a difference between a discussion and a statement made to produce an argument.

[The Grand Nudger]

Indeed.......

[Cinjin]

woah ... I nearly got confused by the word perhaps and the name Perhaps while reading your back & forth.

[Welsh cake]

I am defending my hypothesis. The fact that science works, does not change the fact that it is induced.

So? What's wrong with inductive reasoning?

It is an assumption which is verified with evidence. It's stength is that it is meant to be criticized, no argument there, but do not state that it determines truths or facts, unless you specify that those truths and facts are relative to the time and knowledge available.

So what if it is?

I don't give two fucks about the problem of induction if we discover more about our reality through observation like this item of news for example:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16267625