Our abstract idea of implication ("if A then B") is a conceptualization of natural causal relationships.......

...but only through induction can empirical observations of cause-and-effect relationships lead to generalized results. Indeed, our confidence in scientific knowledge is based solely on the refutability of hypotheses, which can usually be reduced to statements of cause and effect. So the only "real" truth is given by negation of implications. Now, refuting the hypothesis "if A then B" is like showing "A but not B", which suppresses any explicit causation and leaves us with a positive remark about two variables.|||"if A then B" isnt necessarily causal. It could be coincidental, correlative, or have a common cause.





All the statement asserts is that if A is true, then so is B. The nature of that relationship isnt even hinted at.





I do understand what youre saying though.





I have made a similar observation. I believe that our assuredness... our confidence... in deductive reasoning is based solely in inductive reasoning. It is through the emotional response we make when we observe deductive reasoning "play out well"... that confidence in our process... which lead to deductive reasoning.





We make firm, strict, rules of deductive logic... which only have basis in abstract conceptualization, emotional response, and observation of the potentially coincidental, but otherwise reinforcing world. It just seems to me that we cannot create a more strict law from a lesser strict, if not abstract, feel for the truth.





I question... I doubt... the very validity of logic. In some ways, I think perhaps induction could prove more valid in some cases.





I also appreciate what you have to say that, so to speak, "truths cannot be proven... but falsities can be". But I would like to point out that this statement assumes that we are 100% sure of truths that we cannot be sure of. You assume that prejudices and biases are not recognized... that any premised truth is assumed. You have eliminated the very real possibility that we are not ignorant of the probabilities that underline the premises our theories... but that we are only sure of the probabilities that our theories demonstrate





May I make the statement that science has proven nothing. It only has established a set of theories that seem to work.





Electricity is still a theory, believe it or not. As there is much unknown and unexplained, we could very well be wrong about the nature of electricity. But what we do know is the observations we make when manipulating whatever it is.|||you mean positive about one variable hypothetically Kant is your man I think great question made me think





yes cause and effect can lead to general results from layman's we both know you must choose sides and one side has more proof then the other like god more proof is on evo's side but it still cannot be proven and I choose the lord or god why I don't know every time they find something new I question it(god that is) but I always come back to my home. Generalized is the safe house of scientists they can't prove nothin but what you can use and that can still be questioned take cancer caused by smoking lung cancer caused by smoking so why do ppl who don't smoke or who don't expose themselves to second hand smoke get lung cancer HMMMMMMMMMM makes you think eh(Canadian I apologize LOL) what is proven and what isn't you have to decide for yourself to me I pick everything I take nothin for granted the X-files motto trust no one





cheers hope you like my horrible answer|||Interesting observation, if not stated somewhat explicitly. However theres a reason that Socrates developed his method of trial and error while comparing historic to recent experiments and theories. I mean honestly, don't we kinda have to remove the irrelevant elements in order to pursue a particular answer? And yes, while presenting the evidence in an even manor would be a nice balanced way sounds like a fair and well balanced idea, in allot of situations it would only confuse the issues at hand. So yea, I believe I would have to disagree and say that considering our equations in terms of causality may actually be a necessity in a number of arguments. Dig it?|||If A, then B, is the relations of imiplications. It is just an entailment relations, which is distince and different from that of causal relationship. Entailment relationship is simply that of antecent and consequent, there is no causal connection between them. Causal connection is any, has to be further discovered and prooved.





Case is defined as 'the immediate, invariable and unconditional antecedent to the effect'. It is not necessary that in all antecedent and consequent relations, there is causal copnnection. it only speaks of an entailment.|||technically the only "real" truth is conceptual theoretical knowledge. deductively proven facts. IF a circle has a radius of 5 THEN the area is ~78.





but yeah for inductive it seems negative implications do the trick. i think thats why they say science never proves anything, it can only disprove them.|||wow!, im a little confused, I think you have induction and deduction reversed. Only through deduction can empirical observations be verifed.. Scientific knowledge is certainly not based on the refutation of hypotheses. Hypothoses exist only when they are created and therefore have a de facto truth in and of themselves. The "real" truth is NOT given by negation of implications, frankly that makes no sense.





I still don't understand what you mean by "if 'A' then B', and I dont' mean to be mean. If you are talking about science, is it not a simple cause and effect relationship. If you are talking about philosophy the proposition (and i still don't really know what you mean) an inductional approach would be a good one. Otherwise the premise (as I still don't understand it) is invalid. Great question. Thanx.|||"If I am hungry, then my stomach is empty."


"If I have knowledge, then I have been observant."


"If I am a man, then I am not a woman."


There is no "negation of implications" here.|||Excuse me but you only make a statement and do not ask a question. What is there to answer?