It’s not clear what you mean by “more conclusive”, but if all you’re trying to say is that in deductive arguments with a valid structure, the conclusions are guaranteed to follow from the premises(that doesn’t mean however that the conclusion is true), then nobody here is going to disagree with you about that.
What they’ve been trying to get you to understand is that attacking a pro-ID argument on the basis that it employs inductive reasoning, is misguided, because inductive reasoning is intrinsic to the scientific process.
1 Like
I have been forthright in accepting the value of INDUCTION to the scientific process.
But if your life depended on either a Valid Deduction being correct, or an Induction being correct… which one would YOU choose?
It wouldn’t make a difference to me, since a deductive argument would still have to rest on the degree to which the premise in the argument is supported.
You seem to think inductive logic is conclusive. You even declare that conclusions based on inductive logic are TRUE.
What is truer than TRUE?
Typo, @T_aquaticus?
Me like-ee DEDUCTION… not induction.
If you have a life-treatening illness, the treatment you receive will almost certainly be determined by induction. So I’ll go with that.
Then why do you use induction and declare it to be TRUE?
This is inductive logic:
The fact we are STILL debating Inductive vs. Deductive is a clue as to why we make no real progress against I.D. proponents.
But my steak dinner wager is still in place!
This discussion does demonstrate why the “debate” over ID Creationism is incessant. But it’s the not the reason you seem to be thinking of.
You can’t reason a person out of a position that they didn’t reason themselves into. That’s why we can’t make progress.
2 Likes
When we can discuss the 2 different scenarios with absolutely no controversy, we will be done.
That is mostly true, but occasionally people reason themselves out of a position that they didn’t reason themselves into.
2 Likes