Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Do waves move faster in a liquid with a higher density?
Next: ...100 MW of Space Solar Power ...per single launch!
From: John Stafford on 17 Dec 2009 09:33 In article <1f8687c7-56a9-41df-8beb-4df0f15e9ce5(a)a10g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, jbriggs444 <jbriggs444(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Anyway, why do you care whether inductive reasoning is or is not > _called_ a "logical" process? > > It is what it is regardless of what it is called and regardless of > which notional categories we choose to place it in or exclude it from. My view is that people new to logic misunderstand what it is - they are most familiar with the simple, formal binary type of logic - that and some are computer programmers where logic is binary. Many misunderstand what fuzzy logic is, too.
From: Zinnic on 17 Dec 2009 09:49 On Dec 17, 3:27 am, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 17, 5:19 pm, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > > > On Dec 17, 12:12 am, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote:> In article <hgbr3n$vn...(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > > > . But as far as I can see there is no > > > > logical form of induction that makes any conclusion more likely than > > > not. > > > But as far as I can see there is no form of induction that is other > > than "more likely than not ". > > Please inform my naivette. > > Yes, sure, one can enumerate past instances of something and couch the > conclusion in cautious terms. This X was red, this Y was red..., > therefore This Z will probably be red. That is an induction that Z is more likely than not to be red. >But this would not change the problem of trying to justify that it is *logical* process. Anyone can > say the latter train of thoughts, the question is what makes it a > logical process rather than a description of how people behave. To act on the above induction makes success more likely than not. That is pragmatic not logical.
From: Y.Porat on 17 Dec 2009 10:00 On Dec 13, 4:01 am, Immortalista <extro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > What is the justification for either: > > 1. generalising about the properties of a class of objects based on > some number of observations of particular instances of that class (for > example, the inference that "all swans we have seen are white, and > therefore all swans are white," before the discovery of black swans) > or > > 2. presupposing that a sequence of events in the future will occur as > it always has in the past (for example, that the laws of physics will > hold as they have always been observed to hold). > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction > > ------------------------------------------ > > Two views of Deduction & Induction: > > View 1: conclusion; > Deduction = infers particular from general truths > Induction = infers general from particular truths > > View 2: conclusion; > Deduction = follows with absolute necessity > Induction = follows with some degree of probability > > Deduction and Induction From > Introduction to Logic Irving M. Copihttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0130749214/ ---------------------- if you want pionnering sciencve (ie advance) you have to do a combination of some systems: 1 to use known observations 2 to make inductive suggestions *that are based on that experimental data !! in simpler words to make new insights from the existing data that didnt occur to any other one before !! and based on it it is preferred to add on it predictions that can be verified by experiments later !!... (it is not a job for parrots that are able only to quote the existing !!) and at the end of the day it becomes knowledge !!(that others can parrot (:-) ATB Y.Porat -----------------------------
From: jbriggs444 on 17 Dec 2009 12:12 On Dec 17, 9:49 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > On Dec 17, 3:27 am, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 17, 5:19 pm, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > > > > On Dec 17, 12:12 am, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote:> In article <hgbr3n$vn...(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > > > > . But as far as I can see there is no > > > > > logical form of induction that makes any conclusion more likely than > > > > not. > > > > But as far as I can see there is no form of induction that is other > > > than "more likely than not ". > > > Please inform my naivette. > > > Yes, sure, one can enumerate past instances of something and couch the > > conclusion in cautious terms. This X was red, this Y was red..., > > therefore This Z will probably be red. > > That is an induction that Z is more likely than not to be red. > > >But this would not change the problem of trying to justify that it is *logical* process. Anyone can > > say the latter train of thoughts, the question is what makes it a > > logical process rather than a description of how people behave. > > To act on the above induction makes success more likely than not. > That is pragmatic not logical. What makes you claim that "to act on the above induction makes success more likely than not" if you also claim that there is no logical basis for acting in such a manner. Don't get me wrong. You could be right. Finagle could be in charge of everything and the minute you think you've figured out the rules, he could decide to change them. Induction could turn out to be the exact wrong thing to rely on. But what's your alternative? Reach into the hot stove for the pot of gold that wasn't there last time precisely because it wasn't there last time? That doesn't sound very smart.
From: Michael Gordge on 17 Dec 2009 15:10
On Dec 14, 7:17 am, "Daniel T." <danie...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > Everything we know about reality is ultimately inductive. Example? MG |