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: Androcles on 12 Jan 2010 16:53 "Phuckwit Duck" <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote in message 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 =============================================== Androcles -- [waiting with a duck for a shotgun to appear]
From: PD on 12 Jan 2010 16:55 On Jan 12, 3:32 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > > 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. Why are you relying on "ewoll" to tell you what Euclid's fifth postulate says, rather than just looking up what it says for yourself. You are allowed to use Google where you're incarcerated, right? Once you find out what Euclid's fifth postulate says, you can give me a yes or no answer as to whether it is in fact a postulate. PD
From: Androcles on 12 Jan 2010 16:58 "Phuckwit Duck" <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote in message 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 ============================================= Androcles -- [waiting with a time bomb for a duck to appear].
From: PD on 12 Jan 2010 17:02 On Jan 12, 3:47 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_r> wrote: > "Phuckwit Duck" <thedraperfam...(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. As you can see, Androcles, this has terrified me into stupefied silence ever since. :>) Congratulations for your choice of post-retirement career as a professional peanut-gallery heckler.
From: John Stafford on 12 Jan 2010 17:35
In article <f66d5eec-72b5-4672-8788-61d2d7d139e4(a)h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldoraz(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. If it is true (as far as we can know) that the universe is convoluted then Euclid's fifth postulate could be false at the universal scale. It remains that it is true and cannot be false in the realm of Euclidean space because it proofs, therefore it is appropriate to consider it an axiom for problems related to Euclidean geometry/space. Understanding the scope of a problem, and the success of axioms within the scope of the problem leads to knowledge. It is not knowledge. It LEADS to knowledge, even if it can be shown to be false later. |