(April 12, 2016 at 10:09 am)robvalue Wrote: It's more likely true than its negation?
You're just making things up. This is pointless. You can't possibly know that it's more likely true than not with regard to all unobserved reality, and to the fabric of reality itself.
This is a waste of time.
Why not? Why are scientist spending billions on examining what happened at the beginning of our universe? Because they can't know anymore than they do? Is there an imaginary line between what we know now and what we may know in the future and only then can we reason out the ramifications?
You are confusing inductive reasoning with deductive reasoning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
"Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying strong evidence for the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given.[1]
Many dictionaries define inductive reasoning as reasoning that derives general principles from specific observations, though some sources disagree with this usage.[2]
The philosophical definition of inductive reasoning is more nuanced than simple progression from particular/individual instances to broader generalizations. Rather, the premises of an inductive logical argument indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion but do not entail it; that is, they suggest truth but do not ensure it. "
