We do not always generalize something happening again and again into a law and believe it true. It depends greatly on how much we take ourselves to see, how general the proposed generalization is in comparison, and how well it fits with other beliefs. We see no space aliens again and again, yet largely believe that they must be out there somewhere. Not everything we see in life is (taken to be) explained by physics, consciousness is one counterexample. And what we see in life is so puny compared to the scope of global naturalism that such "induction" would not fly even if it was.

Epiphenomenalists are, for all intents and purposes, supernaturalists who don't deny induction and science.

@Conifold I accept that we do not generalize that aliens do not exist. That is because the observable universe is only a small fraction of the universe (outside we can't observe even in principle) and even in that we haven't probed a considerable fraction. But I disagree with you on consciousness. I think physics (or the biology which emerges from it) can explain consciousness.

@BertrandWittgenstein'sGhost what's supernatural about them? They think consciousness is an emergent phenomenon from the physical world. But they do think that metal things exist separately from physical reality and abstract mathematical reality. Is that supernatural?

@KasiReddySreemanReddy what do you mean by supernatural?

@BertrandWittgenstein'sGhost Any physical process explained by physics is natural. Abstract mathematics exists, which is also natural. Mental ideas like happy, sad are also seem natural. But maths and mental stuff are platonic I think.

Can explain is quite different from did explain, which it would have to do before your proposed induction. And you are not disagreeing with me, I expressed no opinion one way or the other. To follow you, the phenomena currently explainable by physics are only a small fraction of all phenomena, anything complex enough is beyond that at the moment. By your own argument, you should not generalize on naturalism. All you can have is not induction, but only optimistic hope, that things may work out eventually.

@Conifold "the phenomena currently explainable by physics are only a small fraction of all phenomena, anything complex enough is beyond that at the moment" Physics explains chemistry. That is chemistry emerges from physics. Like that biology emerges from chemistry. So in that sense, the complex physical stuff can be explained by physics.

@KasiReddySreemanReddy I asked a specific question, what do you mean by supernatural?

Not even quantum chemistry is currently reducible to physics, only bits and pieces in biology, and even less in psychology. One can take the glass as half full or half empty, except it is far less than half, for now. It will grow, we should hope much more can be done, but again can is a hope, not a basis for induction.

@BertrandWittgenstein'sGhost well anything like this (Piccolo Lifts a Pyramid using mind energy) is supernatural. Wikipedia says, they are phenomena that are not subject to the laws of nature. That definition seems reasonable.

@Conifold okay.

@KasiReddySreemanReddy "phenomen(on) that are not subject to laws of nature" I believe you are a smart individual, you can connect the dots now, right? mental states are not isomorphic to brain states. Latter is reducible to fundamental physical interaction, i.e. subject to laws of nature, so, former being non-isomorphic to latter implies what? Which implies we have at the very least one group of people that can consistently believe in the supernatural without denying induction and science.

@BertrandWittgenstein'sGhost I am not sure why mental states are not isomorphic to brain states. I think that several states of your brain are isomorphic to happy and several are isomorphic to sad mental states etc. I think in principle we can deduce what is in our mind from observing every particle in our brain. Do Epiphenomenalists think differently?

@BertrandWittgenstein'sGhost okay thanks and bye.

Edited tags to include scientism, which may prefigure into the question, and theology was has very specific doctrines that integrate naturalism.

@JD I am not advocating scientism. It claims that all knowledge comes from science. Clearly mathematical truths and moral truths are unrelated to science.

I made no such claim you were. But the topic is tangential to scientism. As a proponent of scientism, I can assure you of this. As for mathematical and moral truths not being related to science, you clearly aren't familiar with mathematical or ethical positions which are rooted in science and empiricism. You might want to consider both intuitionism and emotivism which are built on a foundation of philosophy that respects cognitive science.

You have certain presumptions that are questionable first principles. Everyone does, which is the nature of metaphysics, a point acceded by the most radical proponents of scientism, the logical positivists.

BTW, as a concrete counterexample to your question, the current Pope is a man of science and advocates for evolution.

Oh, and good question! Welcome to SE Philosophy! Thanks for your contribution. Please take a quick moment to take the tour or find help. You can perform searches here or seek additional clarification at the meta site. Don't forget, when someone has answered your question, you can click on the arrow to reward the contributor and the checkmark to select what you feel is the best answer.

@JD ok I misunderstood that you meant I am a scientismist. I don't think that maths is purely invented to understand science. For example, some people think that since quantum logic is different from classical logic, Logic is Empirical. But I think it was perfectly possible that someone figured out quantum logic before it was experimentally found. For example, until manifolds were understood by Gauss and Riemann people thought that only Euclidean space is logically possible.

After a century Einstein showed that reality is actually a manifold and not a Euclidean space. It is perfectly possible that Gauss and Riemann didn't figure that out and Einstein had to invent that maths to explain (in fact he was trying to invent that maths but some said to him, that was already done ). Classical logic is not wrong, it just happens to be not the thing we should use to explain universe.

@JD I know about stack exchange well. I used the physics stack exchange many times.