So getting back to good explanations, where do these explanations come from?

There's currently an obsession with induction.

Induction being the idea that you can predict the future from the past.

You can say, I saw one, then two, then three, then four, then five.

So therefore next must be six, seven, eight, nine.

There's a belief that this is how new knowledge is created.

This is how scientific theories are formed.

And this is how we can make good explanations about the universe.

What's wrong with induction and where does new knowledge come from?

You did mention the black swan earlier.

And I'd like to go back to that.

The black swan is an example that various people have used over the years

in order to illustrate this idea that repeatedly observing the same phenomena over and again

should not make you confident that it will continue in the future.

In Europe we have white swans.

So any biologists who is interested in birds, the observing whites, one after white swan,

and apparently concluding on that basis that therefore all swans are white,

then someone travels to Western Australia and there you notice that there are swans

that otherwise look identical to the ones in Europe, but they're black.

Let's consider another example of induction.

Ever since the beginning of your life you have observed that the sun has risen?

Does this mean that scientifically you should conclude the sun will rise tomorrow?

...