Clips from an Interview with Dwayne Davies 

Thank you for the compliment and thank you for your excellent question. I'm currently working on a theory of induction. That theory takes elements from both Peikoff and McCaskey, as well as some elements which are my own. The parts which are my own are the narrative method, the MQIC method and the conditional hierarchy (a system I refer to as the causal hierarchy in this video ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-mvOmNPWSiNQ.html ) The main thing I have taken from the Logical Leap is the idea that induction must go in a particular order, later steps being dependent on the earlier steps. Using Peikoff's work, I have developed a more specific idea of what such a progression should look like, and give specific advice on how to properly construct such a logical progression. Reading McCaskey's blog has made me realize that a conceptual framework plays a very important role in induction. Peikoff said this too, he said that good concepts enable generalizations about those concepts. However, my view of the role of concepts in induction is much closer to that of McCaskey. McCaskey's account of many inductions is that they are essentially achieved through the gradual evolution of an entire conceptual framework over time, not a process of forming concepts then forming generalizations about them. At least that's how I read McCaskey's work. Though I've been influenced by McCaskey's blog posts, McCaskey has not put forward a theory of induction yet (though I believe he might be working on one) so I must emphasize that my theory will only have been influenced by my reading his blog, I have not incorporated any of his explicit principles in my work, though I think I may have explicated some of the things he has hinted at in his blog.

15:51 It's simple, a circle is a type of an ellipse, so it's pretty obvious that if one planets travels like that they all must, which includes all special cases where planet orbits are perfect circles

17:48 Gravitational lensing GPS Black holes.

@@ExistenceUniversity There was certainly evidence at this point in history that there was something about the interaction between the planets and the sun which caused an elliptical orbit (since they all had such an orbit.) But since we didn't know what that was, we were unable to generalize. "If one planet travels like that, they all must." On what basis are you making this claim?

@@Inductica On the basis of mathematics. The early assumption being circular orbits, but when one is no longer a perfect circle that means all of them are on elliptical orbits, even if 99% of them are still circular, 100% are elliptical.

@@ExistenceUniversity Certainly the function of GPS and the prediction of gravitational lensing are proof that the equations are getting something right, but how is this evidence that space is a thing that bends? This is what they won't answer. "A Theory of Relativity Based on Physical Reality." by Lajos Janossy claims to reproduce all the major results of general relativity with an ether theory. I've read the book myself but would need to read it more carefully to asses those claims. I didn't pursue it further, since I know on metaphysical grounds that space is a relationship between entities, and at the very least it is unclear and unhelpful physically to talk about such a thing bending. A different perspective, especially one which attempts to identify physical properties of an ether will be required to clarify what the equations of general relativity mean physically and to help us make real progress.