So you start with your statement of which there is yet no proof. It’s literally true or false. eg; “Sars is a bird virus”.
It’s empirically testable and also allows us to make predictions.
You call it a Hypothesis
Then you inductively interpret & explain the “new” observable events (facts), & deductively apply principles already known.
You make sure that the Hypothesis Resists being falsified, and succeeds in attempts to verify, it’s empirically supported, progressive, etc.
Then, if it is you arrive at, by induction, your new Theory.
Firstly, do I have this right?
Secondly, the point of “deductively apply principles already known”.
Aren’t these principles originally arrived at by a process of induction?
If all scientific knowledge is tentative, and deductive reasoning is a process whereby the conclusion simply unpacks the premise (provides complete support for i)t, how can these “principles already known” be applied deductively?
that’s more or less correct. i’d just be a bit more cautious with how you use the terms “inductively” and “deductively”. those are more strictly logical terms, though science definitely does rely on logic to make implications and generalizations with collections of observations/data.
the scientific method, which is what i think you are asking about, is broken down into five “steps”:
gather together some observations/data (empirical evidence) about the physical universe.
form a general idea about what all that ‘evidence’ or ‘data’ means. (this is your hypothesis.)
use that hypothesis to make “predictions” or “implications” (here’s where logic comes in) about the universe.
test your predictions by conducting experiments to see how close your predictions match your observations of the universe. with the results of your experiments, modify the hypothesis accordingly.
thoroughly refine your hypothesis by repeating steps 3 and 4 until the hypothesis is a reliable predictor of the observations. the “theory” eventually matches up to “reality”.
so the hypothesis really does resist being falsified. an inability to be falsified is sort of “built in” to the hypothesis over time… with more and more experimentation it becomes more and more reliable. though i can’t, in good conscience, suggest that any theory or hypothesis ever becomes completely 100% reliable.
it seems to me like you’re suggesting that any scientific theories or hypotheses that we might have floating around are fundamentally ‘unreliable’, since they don’t rest upon completely 100% certain, ‘deductive’ grounds.
philosophically i don’t think its wise to ever say that scientific hypotheses are ever completely certain (e.g. “the speed of light travels at roughly 186,000 miles per second” or “canadian geese always migrate in the winter”). i wouldn’t say that because 1) i do not know whether these things have always been such and such a way and 2) i do not know whether these things will always be such-and-such a way in the future. you could probably even come up with more reasons.
however, for “practical purposes” its not wise to think this way. no scientist could ever get anything done if she couldn’t get past a few minor discrepancies like this. this is the process you’re skeptical of (i think)… making inferences when there isn’t 100% certainty.
now when you go to bed at night, you can’t be completely certain that you’ll wake up the next morning. but you still make plans for the next day. you assume you’re going to be eating breakfast and going to work and so on. you have to just live with some of that doubt in order to make things work.
but every new day that you get up, you gain more and more confidence in the assertion that “I WILL GET UP TOMORROW MORNING!”
Well, the question of the validity of ascribed right is enough for a huge discussion in itself. First we would have to acertain the source and guarantor of rights, and I won’t respond to this issue of rights.
I will say that scientific awareness generally leads to proper functioning of society. Of course there are exceptions to this claim, but the very nature of searching for knowledge, if credible, suggests that qualified individuals can engage in the scientific method. My use of qualified is rather broad.
Now to the validity of the scientific method, we observe that certain events logically follow based on past events. For instance, there is no logical reason for you to believe that time will not stand still tomorrow or 3 hours from now, but the fact that time progresses is only logically consequent based on past events. This also applies in science that because certain events take place, the said events or principles logically follow. This deduction can be said to constitute “scientific faith”.