**See Also:** - Inductive reasoning (aka "[[Induction]]") is a form of logical inference, based on the accumulation of evidence supporting a claim. - Induction is a key feature of both the scientific method and how we learn. ([[Science is Inductive, and So are We]]) - The more instances we have, the stronger we can believe the generalization. - The instances must be reliable. Control of variables; reputation of actors. - If an instance of induction fails, either the induction is wrong, or there is another conflated effect embedded - an uncontrolled variable. - We [[Evolution|evolved]] to perform induction. - It arose from our ability to perform pattern-matching and is entirely natural. - Induction can also be used to negate claims. - EG: the biblical "global" flood. - If the flood had happened, there would be evidence. - Not only is there no evidence of a global flood, but there is ample evidence that there was no flood. - (There is evidence, from pre-Biblical cultures, of local floods that were documented as global because at the time the full extent of the Earth was not known; but that's not the same thing as a biblical global flood.) - Every time that science has had something to say that ran counter to religious doctrine, science has won - from the orbit of the Earth to the biological basis of homosexuality. %% #todo - refactor to a separate note. %% - This is an inductive argument as well, and there are no counterexamples. - However, over-reliance on induction can be problematic. - It's possible to have a very reliable inductive argument fall to pieces when the right evidence is uncovered. - EG: the black swan problem. - This is a good reason for science always leaving open the door to revision of all its "knowledge". - This is also a good reason for *everyone* to leave open the possibility of revision *any* of their beliefs.