(September 9, 2012 at 6:02 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: But even when you claim "incredible amount of physical evidence", you are implying a second assumption of science. It's the problem of induction. Again.
Yet another scientific assumption.
Yes, however - induction has been demonstrably useful in the past, and it's well-understood that any claims made via the process of induction are provisional and a matter of probability (even if the probability cannot be necessarily quantified).
Should one propose to abandon induction and rely solely on deduction (which I will note has it's own problems)? I think not.
The issue at hand, from my view, is that of certainty. Even if inductive and deductive processes are imperfect, we are capable of using them to form approximate models of reality that are at least useful.
In the absence of better solutions, that's good enough for me.
