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: Michael Gordge on 8 Jan 2010 22:41 On Dec 24 2009, 6:13 am, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > Fancy thinking that you will get the least sense from this poster! It > reflects poorly on your judgement. This idiot knows absolutely nothing > and is here to merely troll about, use foul language, say "ewe" and drop > Kant's good name. What makes ewe believe that anyone but an idiot would suggest Kant was anything but a POC idiot? MG
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 8 Jan 2010 22:42 On Jan 8, 5:51 pm, Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 7, 8:55 pm, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > dorayme wrote: > > > >> In physics the rules were selected because they bear some relation to > > >> observation. The observation does not verify the rules, the rules > > >> are the result of the observation. > > > > Not in any sense of "relationship" or "the result of" that anyone > > > around these parts is explaining or understanding. It is a big and > > > open question in the philosophy of science. I don't mind chatting > > > further about it. > > > You do some grad work in mathematics and physics and get back to us. As > > things stand you need more background than can be provided via USENET to get > > to where you understand the issues under discussion. > > ROFL. This response is just as gussied up version of > your response to me. Which is to say, content-free > condescension. > > Question: if math is the pointless abstraction that you're > claiming it is, why would anyone ever bother to do graduate > work in it? > He might say because it would be 1. For the fun of it. 2. In case there is a great big fat coincidence and it has something useful to do in the world. And both answers would not be good answers to your perfectly reasonable question.
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 8 Jan 2010 22:53 On Jan 8, 9:27 pm, chazwin <chazwy...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Hume pointed out this problem in the early 18th C, but despite these > difficulties the last 200 years+ has used inductive methods to design > all the wonders of technology and we have reached to moon. If "inductive methods" merely means "whatever scientists do when they do the non-deductive bits of their work" naturally it is true. But what use is this. That is not any answer to the problem of induction. > Whilst we > have to always be aware that our inductive knowledge is a question of > probabilistic truth. Nor is this. The problem of induction is not a search for 100% probability. It is a search for anything over 50%. Until this is understood, it is impossible to understand what so troubled Hume and modern versions of the problem
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 8 Jan 2010 23:01 On Jan 9, 3:35 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.net> wrote: > Text analysis is not trivial. Learn up. It is trivially related to this thread.
From: Michael Gordge on 8 Jan 2010 23:12
On Jan 8, 7:27 pm, chazwin <chazwy...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On the question of induction. > It is all probability. No firm an unequivocal causal links are > possible to establish. For every proposed causal link there are > potentially deeper underlying causalities beyond human perception. Gosh, so how would you know that causes are beyond your perception to know about them? You got that idea from the church people didn't you chazzzz? Its identical in ideology to the religionists who, because they cant define their god rationally, they say instead, that man cant know god because god is beyond his perception. MG |