If you want a lesson on surveying in the 18/19 century go look it up.
And again, you just spout a bunch of baseless garbage and then refuse to back it up once you have been shown to be wrong.
As inductive reasoning tends to use broad generalisations
While it can use broad generalisations, there is no need for it to.
Any extent of generalisation would make it inductive reasoning.
Such as observing that light travels in straight lines for some observations and generalising it to everywhere.
Can I remind you what you said:
How about I remind you of what you said:
Most if not all parameters of the earth have been discovered Via observation and experimentation with no inductive reasoning required. It’s total rubbish to say that the earth is a sphere based only or even partly on inductive reasoning.
But now that you can't actually justify it you try and run, just like another thread.
The exact justification of the use of inductive reasoning will depend upon exactly what methods are used, which is why I asked you to clearly explain what the observations were and how the map was produced.
All of science is based upon inductive reasoning.
It relies upon making assumptions about the universe, that it is homogeneous with the same laws of physics everywhere and for all time (this one would even match your criteria of a broad generalisation as we can only direct test these laws here, yet apply it to the entire universe), and that there is no preferred directionality.
One part which directly relates to mapping is that time part.
Are you saying these maps are accurate now, or just when they were made?
The problem with when they were made is that they were likely made with observations over a long period of time.
It is only with inductive reasoning that you can say that because it was like that back when the observations were made it is like that now.
In fact, plate tectonics show that isn't the case at all as the plates move around and makes maps inaccurate.
But inductive reasoning relates to something Tom Bishop loves bringing up, and even to this very thread, bendy light.
As I pointed out above, any observation of the direction to a distant object based upon light (as is common in surveying) is based upon light travelling in a straight line.
But how do we know it does?
Well there is the assumption that the universe is isotropic, or there is the experimental observations of that. But I highly doubt they measured every single piece of the light path to confirm that it would be in a straight line, especially as surveying likes using high points with a large distance that can be viewed from, with a lot of the light path passing through the air.
It is only with inductive reasoning that you can generalise from the small scale experiments showing that light travels in a straight line, to the large scale observations of the angles to distant objects.
The actual observation isn't that the object is in that direction. Instead it is that the light is coming from that direction. It is inductive reasoning (as above) that leads to the conclusion that the object is as well.
So do you have a method of mapping which doesn't rely upon inductive reasoning?