Science uses induction. The swan theory is an inference made by induction.[/quote]
Of course science uses induction. And a sample (well, a representative sample) of swans in which all swans are white supports the hypothesis that all swans are white. The evidence is said to support the hypothesis to a specific degree, a mathematical probability. This is exactly what I've said.
What you do not seem able to see is the distinction between a statement like "we assign a degree of likelihood to the hypothesis that all swans are white" and one that says "no black swans exist because we haven't seen one." Put simply, the former says they might exist (however low we judge the probability), and the latter says they do not exist. Do you grasp the distinction between might and doesn't?
Call it mere wordplay if you like, but it would be a different ballgame if you said, "I am justified in assigning a low probability to the existence of black swans." This is not quite what you've said about either black swans or God. With regard to God, you've claimed to have disproved Its existence. You don't seem to grasp that inductive logic deals in probabilities and uncertainties, even though you have said so yourself.
From what you've written, I suppose you'd like to avoid all this probability and uncertainty with regard to God, because it would place you in the "agnostic" camp, and you've made it clear you've no desire to be there. But that's inductive logic for you. There is an avenue of escape, but you know that.
[quote]Galileo dropped two objects from the same height, noting that they fell at the same speed despite their differing weight. He did this test a few times. He inferred from this that the weight of an object can never affect the speed. (Wind resistance can, though.)
Now, this inference is based on induction. It is possible that we could observe an object fall faster because of its weight, thus falsifying the theory. The fact that this is a possibility shows that it is an INDUCTIVE inference, not a deductive one. It is just like the swan example--it can be proven false and the conclusion doesn't absolutely follow.
[/quote]
Galileo's process, in which hypothetical physical laws are derived from observation, which laws in turn make predictions which are then tested, is not reducible to simple enumerative induction, as in the swan example. The demolition of your argument about the speed of light should have made this abundantly clear.
Thanks. You might do the same, and I encourage you to pay closer attention to the results.
I still await a real-life example of a scientific conclusion that resembles "no black swans exist because all the observed ones have been white." Could you please furnish one, if they are so abundant?
---
What others say about boorite!
