Is induction really based on a priori or if everything we know and fantasize is included isn't it close...

Question

enough to be very accurate enough and better than deduction. I find, for instance, if I know I'm going to California tomorrow, that gives me a big enough picture to answer large questions like should I by a house here tomorrow and small decisions, like, I will need a toothbrush. What I mean is are we putting too much emphasis on deduction and missing the world view, considering that atoms aren't having a problem, people are. And shouldn't induction be used more in science instead of getting more and more isolated from the real world and other disciplines.

If we take all the knowledge we have we can get an overview and fill in gaps by comparisons and further specific questions. Quantum computers can take advantage of that to answer so much. The mind works in images and probabilities also. The whole idea of excluding the subjective is terribly flawed, becasue we actually can experience, form the inside, all that we study on the outside and take that on the inside too. It may be objective to study a frog from observation, but we experience life and can sense what the cells and dna are doing. We evaluate information with the mind without understanding it and how it works. That seems short sighted to me. If we exclude evidence and the internal sense and science is based on the senses, we left one out.

Answer 1

I don't understand most of what you are saying, but inductive reasoning is useful, and is used in science all the time. You just need to understand its applicability and its limitations.

Answer 2

There is nothing wrong with scientific induction, besides the fact that many partially consider it a faulty form of reasoning. Scientific induction is a form of a priori that is based on the general nature of recurrence. Many have tried to refute this, through the centuries, criticizing it's fallibility, but not considerable of the fact that just because something is a priori, doesn't mean that it isn't fallible. And the fallibility of a priori has been shown with a number of Empirical ideas, such as non-Eucledan geometry and the variability of time/space.

Answer 3

The problem with using induction in science is that you can't base a premise on the assumption that the conclusion is true. The only valid use of induction is mathematical induction. The only way to use mathematical induction is if you know what you are trying to prove (you can't use it to derive a formula, only to prove that a given formula works). How can such a concept possibly work in science? Better yet, how can it consistently work in the real world? Induction is considered faulty logic for a reason. You can't justify premises based on conclusions.