Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[Sam]

Hey Sam,

Ok here it goes, can your worldview justify the assumption that the future will for the most part resemble the past providing a basis for the principle of induction that all of science is based on?

Okay, Sorry for the delay by the way.

Well, in all honesty I would say that the uniformity of nature is presupposed since it cannot be legitimately justified by induction nor deduction. Induction is discounted because any reference to it would make the argument viciously circular and a deductive argument for it would have to rely on axiomatic assumptions relating directly to the point in question.

That being said, I would hold that the uniformity of nature is a result of natural laws controlling all interactions between particles at various scales. It follows from this that nature, being a result of a limited number of these laws which control particle interactions would behave uniformly in a manner predictable by these laws. Of course, this conjecture, developed via the scientific method relies initially on the assumption of uniformity but the theory is well corroborated by the sum of current knowledge.

Whether this point, has any bearing on our ability to legitimately conduct science is a much more complex question.

Since induction, as used in the scientific method does not claim to discover truths or absolutes it would not necessarily be invalidated by some non-uniformity of nature. In the sense the induction allows for the development of knowledge in probabilistic terms it would still be a useful tool. As such extreme inductive scepticism; that an inductive conclusion and its negation would be equally likely cannot be justified whereas moderate inductive scepticism; admitting that we do not know for sure or absolutely, can be. There are also certain mathematical and deductive proofs of certain aspects of inductive reasoning which support it as a probabilistic method of knowledge development which is self-correcting and therefore likely to bring us closer to truth.

I would hold, as did Hume that given its usefulness in life we would always be pragmatically justified in using it if and until it proved otherwise.

There are also arguments proposed by Karl Popper et al., who argue that in fact science does not uses induction but a system of conjecture, criticism and refutation to arrive at knowledge in the form of well-corroborated theories.

These are my thoughts, if they can be called that, based on what I have read and studied thus far. All that being said my final point is that inductions strength is not its ability to be clearly justified or validated but its ability to correct itself and generally promote true knowledge.

Now Statler, You will, of course deny or disagree with some, if not all of what I have said. Could I ask you to explain how your worldview justifies the uniformity of nature? Assuming you will have to reference scripture can you provide the exact passages which mention this?

Regards

Sam

---

A deductively sound argument is the strongest proof possible, that’s basic logic. You keep appealing to evidence which of course is based off of induction which is weaker than deduction.

It's funny, I don't even see how the TAG classifies as a deductive argument, its form (indirect, transcendental) is more a re-hashing of both inductive and deductive techniques. I believe even some of its proponents recognise that it "[The TAG] presupposes a whole system of definitions and sub-arguments" (John Frame)

Easy enough. Empiricism states that all truth claims are discerned through empirical observation. However, that claim right there cannot be discerned through empirical observation. So if empiricism is true it refutes itself and has to be false, if it is false it also has to be false so therefore it is false. It is a self refuting position.

That's a pretty fatuous attempt a 'refuting' an epistemology Statler. Put simply, Empiricism claims that knowledge derives from sensory experience. That claim is an abstraction of the method used by empiricists to arrive at knowledge and is thus justified by their sensory experience of said method.