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: Patricia Aldoraz on 18 Dec 2009 21:27 On Dec 19, 10:43 am, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > Both the Gambler's Fallacy and it's reverse are post hoc fallacies. What exactly does this mean? It is a fallacy before, during and after the foolish gambler loses all his money thinking that because he has lost so many times, he has a greater chance of winning the next time. > The validity of an inductive argument relies on the characteristic > being generalized as well as the number of observations, a disproof of > an inductive argument does not disprove all inductive arguments. Russell's chicken hardly improved its chances of surviving the next day because it had survived all previous days. In fact, the more the days, we know now, the less chance it had of surviving the next. Your description is not decription of some form of reasoning that has any kind of logic or validity or probability or an element of necessity.
From: M Purcell on 18 Dec 2009 21:49 On Dec 18, 6:27 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 19, 10:43 am, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > Both the Gambler's Fallacy and it's reverse are post hoc fallacies. > > What exactly does this mean? It is a fallacy before, during and after > the foolish gambler loses all his money thinking that because he has > lost so many times, he has a greater chance of winning the next time. You should be able to look it up on the internet but basically it's the false assumption a prior event effects the next event. > > The validity of an inductive argument relies on the characteristic > > being generalized as well as the number of observations, a disproof of > > an inductive argument does not disprove all inductive arguments. > > Russell's chicken hardly improved its chances of surviving the next > day because it had survived all previous days. In fact, the more the > days, we know now, the less chance it had of surviving the next. Your > description is not decription of some form of reasoning that has any > kind of logic or validity or probability or an element of necessity. That was gibberish.
From: M Purcell on 18 Dec 2009 22:05 On Dec 18, 6:27 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 19, 10:43 am, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > Both the Gambler's Fallacy and it's reverse are post hoc fallacies. > > What exactly does this mean? It is a fallacy before, during and after > the foolish gambler loses all his money thinking that because he has > lost so many times, he has a greater chance of winning the next time. You should be able to look it up on the internet but basically it's the false assumption a prior event effects the next event. > > The validity of an inductive argument relies on the characteristic > > being generalized as well as the number of observations, a disproof of > > an inductive argument does not disprove all inductive arguments. > > Russell's chicken hardly improved its chances of surviving the next > day because it had survived all previous days. In fact, the more the > days, we know now, the less chance it had of surviving the next. Your > description is not decription of some form of reasoning that has any > kind of logic or validity or probability or an element of necessity. Okay, it does look like you are using the Reverse Gamblers Fallacy. There is no way of determining from past days if the next day will be the chickens last.
From: Zinnic on 19 Dec 2009 10:02 On Dec 18, 5:12 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 19, 12:49 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > > > If a fair coin is flipped, logic cannot demonstrate that it will end > > up as tails even though if it has ended up as tails in the previous > > 200 flips. However, in this case I would bet on tails on the basis > > that the coin may not be fair. That is I would be use induction to > > make a pragmatic rather than a logical choice. > > If you had merely said that you would bet on the coin coming up > tails again if it had always come up tails on countless occasions > in the past, then no one would dispute your reasonableness. > But you go on to say you use induction as if this is some sort of > technique. And it is here where the real disagreements start. > Induction is either not an argument form, or if it is, > it is a manifestly inadequate one. So let us accept that it is "a manifestly inadequate " argument. Then maybe we can go on to decide by which criteria it is assessed as being inadequate. On into the abyss, where induction casts adequate shadows tot point the way out!
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 19 Dec 2009 18:14
On Dec 19, 2:05 pm, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Dec 18, 6:27 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On Dec 19, 10:43 am, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > Both the Gambler's Fallacy and it's reverse are post hoc fallacies. > > > What exactly does this mean? It is a fallacy before, during and after > > the foolish gambler loses all his money thinking that because he has > > lost so many times, he has a greater chance of winning the next time. > > You should be able to look it up on the internet but basically it's > the false assumption a prior event effects the next event. > The Gambler's Fallacy is thinking that your chances of heads coming up increases the more that tails have come up in your previous losing bets on heads. The usual context for uttering the expression "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" - perhaps this is what you have in mind - is where someone thinks that something that happens after another thing else is therefore caused by this other thing. |