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: Daniel T. on 17 Dec 2009 16:36 dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Daniel T." <daniel_t(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > > > "That crow seems black" is not an argument of any sort. "I've > > asked 5 people who saw the crow, and they all have said that it > > seemed black." is an inductive argument. > > > > Again, maybe if you gave an example? > > > > I'm certainly willing to modify my position. Can you present an > > argument (i.e., syllogism) that doesn't fit the assertion I made? > > I think there may be some miscommunication. It happens! > > You originally said: > > "... all deductive arguments rely on either arbitrary definitions or > inductive arguments." > > and I accept that you are talking sound arguments meaning ones with > true premises and successful (rather than purported) entailment. > > But arguments in logic or mathematics do not seem to me to have > inductive elements. And as for arbitrary definitions, it is easy to > say that we depend on these for nearly everything because out > language symbols have a degree of arbitrariness about them. Logic and mathematics are formal systems, their axioms are true by definition and everything else is deductively derived from those axioms. > But apart from that the marks or sounds we use to convey meaning are > arbitrary in this sense (eg. I could use 'foo' instead of 'cat') it > seems false to me to say all arguments depend on induction or ese I > don't really know what the claim is. By "arbitrary" I mean, cannot be found true through any deductive or inductive argument. I'm willing to drop that particular word.
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 17 Dec 2009 16:38 On Dec 18, 1:49 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. > Have you added something important that I missed? Perhaps you are quibbling about the different possible interpretations of "This is probably such and such" and "This such and such is more likely than not" > >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. First, it is simply not true. There is a little variation on a fallacy called the Gambler's which goes: I won on the first pull of the pokie, I won on the second... therefore... this *form* of induction does not make things more likely in any sense at all.
From: Daniel T. on 17 Dec 2009 16:42 Michael Gordge <mikegordge(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > On Dec 14, 7:17�am, "Daniel T." <danie...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > > > Everything we know about reality is ultimately inductive. > > Example? Think of something you know, maybe something about sheep... There is your example.
From: dorayme on 17 Dec 2009 18:53 In article <b85434a6-05e4-4809-b12e-32297fe43d3c(a)2g2000prl.googlegroups.com>, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldoraz(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Perhaps you misunderstand how difficult the essential heart of the > problem of induction is? If you think fuzzy logic addresses the > problem, and I am not ruling out that this might be an interesting > avenue to explore, enlighten us all on how it solves the problem. The idea of a logic is that it involves some degree at least of necessity, of force. Fuzzy logic or probability logic is not obviously helpful to supply this logical force (though it may well be a productive line of enquiry). Perhaps somewhat promising is some idea of multi valued truth where nothing is necessarily true or false. This may start to capture some sort of logic of what we consider our reasonable practices. But I very much doub if out of all this will come out some clear and useful idea of an inductive form of argument. The word seems often to simply conjure up anything that is "not deductive but good" or "the way science operates". Pretty vague stuff, I think you will agree! -- dorayme
From: John Stafford on 17 Dec 2009 19:34
Acting on inductive reasoning leads to knowledge. By acting upon your conclusion you have a sample of one from which to begin to build a case. |