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: PD on 12 Jan 2010 16:44 On Jan 12, 1:50 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > In article <sCV2n.3785$ZB2.3...(a)newsfe13.iad>, > Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > > > dorayme wrote: > > > Well, I don't know how you would work it so that one could see that > > > there are no primes between 1 and 21 and such things without changing > > > the *meanings* of the words used. > > > Keep the "meanings"; just change the frameworks, axioms, models, or a > > combination of. > > You mean like "A pig can fly" can be changed into a falsity by a Martian > with different "frameworks, axioms, models", but who means exactly what > we mean by "pig", and "fly" and "is". What an intriguing suggestion! This is where science steps in. For the purpose of *choosing* axioms in science is to find a system of axioms and consequents that actually describes nature. Which means that the statements it produces match observation. So while it is certainly possible to choose a set of axioms by which it logically follows that "A pig can fly" is a true statement, this statement can then be checked by experimental test. When it does not work so well, then this casts doubt on the chosen axioms. > > > > > >>> That does not mean it is > > >>> just a game nor that it is a coincidence that mathematics is useful to > > >>> us. > > >> It's a misconception that games in general have to be useless to human > > >> beings. > > > > Who is falling for that misconception. Neither of us! But the question > > > that is relevant is what sort of use. Mere use because it reduces stress > > > levels is not much relevant! > > > The point is mathematics is still just a game, even though it might be a > > useful one by no coincidence. > > The point is that it is not always just a game then. > > -- > dorayme
From: Androcles on 12 Jan 2010 16:47 "Phuckwit Duck" <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote several years ago: I have to admit that I am demoralized at the moment. I had hoped that we could fight ignorance with a proactive rather than a reactive approach, but this is clearly the improper forum for that. A quick survey of the length of threads initiated by or drifting to nonsense compared to the length of threads based on sound thinking reveals the true interest in the proposal. While it would be a useful project to contribute to the FAQ, the intent was to educate in the context of discussion, a virtual "classroom" if you will. There's no point in contributing to a reference that none of the "students" will read or attempt to learn from. The intention was to focus on *exactly* what is wrong in someone's thinking (which varies from person to person), set it straight, and then make progress from there. I had high hopes -- really -- that perhaps one misguided soul would read something sensible and say, "Oh... Really?...Oh. I see I was confused. OK, I get it now. Now what about...?" My head knew better, my heart does not. [sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a duck to appear] PD ============================================== He was warned I'd haunt him as long as I was alive.
From: PD on 12 Jan 2010 16:48 On Jan 12, 3:19 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 13, 2:50 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 11, 9:20 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > On Jan 12, 10:05 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > The natural numbers are a concept, but I don't think they are an > > > > axiom. > > > > An axiom says something, the natural numbers simply exist. > > > > > I'll reiterate one of the examples I've cited in this thread: Euclid's > > > > fifth postulate. Now, either that is an arbitrary creation of man or > > > > it has some undeniable objective truth. > > > > These are not the only possibilities. > > > Elaborate, please. > > The other possibility that you missed, amazingly is that it is simply > false. This seems to be a remarkable statement, since an axiom is by definition assumed to be true. Thus it is difficult to imagine how one would hold from the outset that the same statement is assumed to be true and yet false. > > Now, because you have been sent here to this Google Group (a sort of > Hell) for punishment, let me add: > > Make absolutely sure now that you will rant and rage and abuse me for > pointing this out or say something teensy and cryptic. What a low > down creep like you will never ever do is be a man and say, "Yes, that > is right and I missed that one!" I didn't know it was so important to you to be deemed right, and that denial of that service would be grounds for bitter invective. Of course, among those on discussion groups, it does seem to be common that the personal objective is to be right and not to discuss.
From: PD on 12 Jan 2010 16:51 On Jan 12, 3:32 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > On Jan 13, 12:51 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Still lacking a "yes" or "no" answer to a yes or no question. > > Is this a form of passive-aggressive behavior that is comfortable for > > you? > > It is reasoning, which is obviously very uncomfortable for you. By "reasoning", you mean "evading giving a yes or no answer to a yes or no question"? Tell me what you think "intelligent" means, then. This should be funny. > > Besides Ewoll says the lines are diverging or converging, but he wont > say which, you say they are parallel but then not parallel, yes or no > is not possible to such stupidity, you need to sort your story / > premises. > > MG
From: Androcles on 12 Jan 2010 16:50
"Puckwit Duck" <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote in a message some years ago, I have to admit that I am demoralized at the moment. I had hoped that we could fight ignorance with a proactive rather than a reactive approach, but this is clearly the improper forum for that. A quick survey of the length of threads initiated by or drifting to nonsense compared to the length of threads based on sound thinking reveals the true interest in the proposal. While it would be a useful project to contribute to the FAQ, the intent was to educate in the context of discussion, a virtual "classroom" if you will. There's no point in contributing to a reference that none of the "students" will read or attempt to learn from. The intention was to focus on *exactly* what is wrong in someone's thinking (which varies from person to person), set it straight, and then make progress from there. I had high hopes -- really -- that perhaps one misguided soul would read something sensible and say, "Oh... Really?...Oh. I see I was confused. OK, I get it now. Now what about...?" My head knew better, my heart does not. [sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a duck to appear] PD ================================================== Blast its tailfeathers! |