Natural Laws and their domain of validity

[JoeDawg]

Right, let's go then.

So, let me get this straight.

You claim the position I took on induction is

so patently nonsense that anyone who would claim such a thing clearly has no real understanding of what makes logic work

You demand, ad nauseum, that I supply a reference for my position.
I reference the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy supports what I have been saying all along.

Your reference was from a free online dictionary.
And you still won't admit you are wrong.

Goodbye troll.

 

[apeiron]

You demand, ad nauseum, that I supply a reference for my position.

Err, something wrong with having to back up your claims?

I reference the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy supports what I have been saying all along.

And which also supports what I said even more clearly. Amusing how often it cited Peirce too.

But I still take issue with that article's passing reference to induction from generals which I demonstrated smuggles in a derivation from a global rule.

And you have failed to counter my argument on that score. Not that actually engaging in substantive ways has ever been your style.

Your reference was from a free online dictionary.
And you still won't admit you are wrong.

The same basic definition of induction and deduction was in the Stanford entry. You were shouting "wrong", "incorrect", yet that just is the standard understanding.

Then if you want to move the discussion to more contemporary and nuanced views, well then you have to make an argument as there are a variety of approaches being taken.

To me, it is still quite clear that the idea of induction from generals is just not that at all. I have said why. I doubt you will ever counter it with some argument of your own. Debate is just not your forte it appears. Even your playground insults could do with sharpening.

Goodbye troll.

See what I mean.