To enter this discussion lets agree that the scientific method is here, here more prominently than in any previous period we have records from.

Inductive reasoning is happening.

The discussion is WHETHER it is legitimate.

Is it okay to predict to future based on the past?, Problem of induction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction)?, Should we even use science?, What else?

Teleology is total bunk. So no.

Until someone shows me a better way i will stick with the scientific method. For some things though, it is valid, even if one considers the problem of induction. For instance, some experiments with physics will happen again and again and again, and that is because of defined laws. Were those laws to change though, well, it would be a whole different story.

We can only go off of what we've observed to be consistently accurate.

Does that mean that it's impossible for something to occur that contradicts previous observations? No, it just means it's unlikely.

If you can't trust your observations you can defer nothing, you can apply nothing, you can have an understanding of nothing.

Every time we discover something that contradicts our understanding we are forced to change our understanding to allow for all previous observations to fit together.

So... the Scientific Method is legitimate... it is not perfect, but it's the only reasonable and testable method of better understanding the way the Universe works and being able to apply that understanding to practical purposes.

While the problem of induction is painful for people who want to be anti-realists about morality (because it among other things forces them towards a slippery slope of global skepticism), I think that the problem of induction is more a problem for the person who is denying induction than for the person trying to preserve induction!

Also, inductive reasoning is pervasive in pretty much every practical reasoning context, not just in science.

The scientific method is the only rational way of dealing with empirical evidence.

:thumbsup: to the O.P. style ;)
:thumbsup: to the rational scientific method.

It would be better if inductive reasoning could be trusted, so I'm gonna say yes.

It would be better if inductive reasoning could be trusted, so I'm gonna say yes.

How do you know it would be better if inductive reasoning could be trusted without assuming the truth of that which you are trying to prove!? :run:

How do you know it would be better if inductive reasoning could be trusted without assuming the truth of that which you are trying to prove!? :run:
Wait, what am I trying to prove now? :p I was pretty much agreeing with what you were saying... Better we allow ourselves to reason inductively than forever wonder what colour the sky will be tomorrow.

Wait, what am I trying to prove now? :p I was pretty much agreeing with what you were saying... Better we allow ourselves to reason inductively than forever wonder what colour the sky will be tomorrow.

But the only way you know that inductive reasoning will tell you what color the sky will be tomorrow is because it has done that in the past... in other words, you have evidence that inductive reasoning works. Of course, in order to use that evidence to prove inductive reasoning, you must use inductive reasoning!

If the problem of induction was real and the scientific method was flawed in some way, then we wouldn't be here discussing this, on computers.

Right?

If the problem of induction was real and the scientific method was flawed in some way, then we wouldn't be here discussing this, on computers.

Right?

Nope, we'd still be here! What you're saying is that induction wouldn't be working if induction didn't always work, which is asserting that induction working in the past demonstrates that it always works, which is using induction to prove induction.

But the only way you know that inductive reasoning will tell you what color the sky will be tomorrow is because it has done that in the past... in other words, you have evidence that inductive reasoning works. Of course, in order to use that evidence to prove inductive reasoning, you must use inductive reasoning!

I'm saying that I without using inductive reasoning, I wouldn't know what colour the sky will be tomorrow. With inductive reasoning, I can know what colour the sky will be tomorrow. I'm not using inductive reasoning to prove that inductive reasoning is true, i'm just saying that it would be better if it was true. I'm assuming inductive reasoning without proof, because it's better than assuming not inductive reasoning and either (a) trying to prove it, or (b) doing without it.