Bill Nye Doesn't Exist

[Zosimus]

Bill Nye Doesn’t Exist
(An inductive argument)

Since there are a large number of true believers in induction, I decided to demonstrate, inductively, that Bill Nye doesn’t exist.

Now the argument that Bill Nye doesn’t exist is equivalent to the argument that the set of all (Bill Nye) does not intersect at any point with the set of all (things that exist). According the argument:
Bill Nye does not exist
is equivalent to the argument
Everything that exists is not Bill Nye.

In my life I have encountered billions of things. Think of all the air molecules I have breathed in and out during my life. Think of all the grains of sand I have seen. Think of all the people I have met. Think of all the molecules of water I’ve seen as the ocean waves lapped over my feet. Think of all the amino acids my cells have made into proteins to make my body work. Think of all the stars I’ve seen in the sky. Think of all the people I’ve walked past, the animals I’ve seen, and the insects I’ve crushed.

Every single one of those things was not Bill Nye. Because of this, Bill Nye’s non-existence is pretty much undeniable. It’s nothing short of fact. If that weren't enough, I've also talked to several people in my office and all of them admit they've encountered billions of things in their lives and none of them was Bill Nye.

Now I know what you’re thinking. Perhaps you’ll say that some people have seen Bill Nye or that pictures of him exist. Seriously, though, if I considered that kind of evidence, I might also have to accept that Moses saw JHWH in a burning bush, that Mohammed was visited by the Arch-angel Gabriel, that Joseph Smith saw golden plates, that Juan Diego saw the Virgin of Guadalupe, and that statues of Ganesha drink milk if given the opportunity.

Alternatively you can just admit that all of these billions of experiences are nothing more than “affirming the consequent” and mean absolutely nothing at all. By doing so you can not only admit that induction is nonsense but also learn how knowledge is really gained. The choice is yours.

 

[Seipai]

If you don't use a tool correctly you will get a bad result.

Induction is a perfectly valid tool if use correctly. You are not doing so.

Using a screwdriver as a hammer does not mean that a screwdriver is a worthless tool.

 

[OllieFranz]

A strength of induction is that every yellow canary is another piece of evidence that (canaries-->yellow) is true. A weakness of induction is that every green parrot or red cardinal, or blue jay is another piece of evidence that (~yellow -->~canary), which is logically equivalent to (canary -->yellow). There is a big difference between the two in terms of practicality, since the second group also give evidence that (~yellow-->~Big Bird)<==>(Big Bird-->yellow), but the first group does not, and if anything might suggest the converse. One has to chose the representative examples with this in mind.

The limitation, however, does not invalidate the usefulness of induction. Even though it is not perfect, it is unavoidable. All learning is inductive. It is hard-wired in our brains.