Try this one: We can infer that the fossil of an organism with sharp pointy teeth is most likely to be a predator, because almost all other organisms examined with sharp pointy teeth were predators.
That’s a perfectly reasonable, normal, and straightforward use of inductive reasoning in science.
Thank you for this fine example. And let me go on record to say that I am not opposed to using Inductive reasoning. I am attempting to demonstrate that Inductive Reasoning is not as persuasive as other forms of reasoning.
Teleological proofs of God are also interesting to discuss… but they are not considered actual proofs.
And we both know that this Inductive statement you provide is not proof that if we find a fossil with pointy teeth, it doesn’t prove that it is a predator.
So, how is this different from deductions that we can make about photosynthesis, or the deductions we can make about recessive Sickle Cell traits that are beneficial at the level of a population, but at the level of the individual?
It is rare that we have complete knowledge of anything in the universe. If we didn’t use inductive reasoning then we would be seriously crippling ourselves, IMHO. If we limited ourselves to only the conclusions we could absolutely prove, where would we be right now? Would we still be in the Stone Age?
Unless we can test every single person with complete thoroughness we can’t make any deductive conclusions. We would have to infer relationships between fitness and phenotype based on a sampling of the population.
How odd that we have 2 atheists, both extolling the value of induction WHENEVER I suggest that it is more vulnerable to contradiction than other forms of reasoning…
…and yet both of you will do logical hand-stands that are virtually incomprehensible when you both attack I.D.
I propose that you both inclined to be contrarians … at least when it comes discussions with me.
Most interesting of all: you havent disproved that inductive reasoning is STILL more vulnerable.
Or perhaps you have an incorrect understanding of how science is done. Is that possible?
I don’t see how one relates to the other.
According to what I was taught in 2nd grade, it takes one to know one. 
Please don’t shout at us, George. We can hear you just fine. 
Best,
Chris
I don’t believe those are deductions. They are conclusions derived from induction. No?
I don’t personally put much faith in deductive reasoning. While one can say with near certainty that a given argument is valid, it is rare that any question of significance whose answer is not otherwise clear can be answered thru deduction alone, since there is usually uncertainty regarding the soundness of the individual premises that make up the argument.
You are highly resistant to my point:
I dont have to prove Deductive reasoning is sufficient.
All we have to do is show that Inductive Reasoning is LESS sufficient than Deductive Reasoning!
Except it’s not.
Show that gravity exists thru deductive reasoning alone.
English?
I said: it isnt important whether deductive reasoning is sufficient for a specific scenario. All we have to show is that Deductive analysis is MORE sufficient than Inductive analysis!
A nuclear bomb would be more than sufficient at taking out a pesky ant colony, and yet a simple poison is still quite effective.
And I have said that claim is not true, then suggested an exercise you can do to try convince me otherwise.
If you don’t like that exercise, of course, you are free to think of another one. But, sorry, just insulting me then repeating the same claim I have already rejected won’t do that.
WHAT is not true? If you want to make yourself clear, provide BOTH SIDES of your version.
When is an INDUCTIVE conclusion more likely to be correct than a deductive one?
Now you are just being a contrarian.
Pointless question. It’s like asking “When is a thermometer more likely to be correct than a sphygmomanometer?” If yu use them both to measure someone’s body temperature, and then to measure their blood pressure, you will get two different answers.
You cannot then make a general claim that one is “more sufficient” than the other. i.e. you can’t say that the temperature measured by the thermometer is more likely correct than the BP measured by the sphygmomanometer because thermometers are in general better than sphygmomanometers.
Considering that you and I both reject I.D. logic, I am endlessly amused that you will say almost anything to reject MY explanation for rejecting I.D. - - even if it means offering a description of my view that has no connection with what I said… or what anyone has said.