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: zzbunker on 22 Dec 2009 09:55 On Dec 12, 9:01 pm, Immortalista <extro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > What is the justification for either: Induction always leads to knowledge, but many scientists are in the deluded state thay induciton always leads to new knowledge. Which is why the people who understand more about knowledge that just wave functions work on Flat Screen Software Debuggers, Laser-Guided Phasors, Data Fusion, Blue Ray, Digital Terrain Mapping, Digital Books, and Pv cell energy, rather than 4 bit A/D Converters. And work on Atomic Clock Wristwatches, Light Sticks, HDTV, mp3, mpeg, GPS, Biodiesel, Hybrid-Electric Cars, and The History Channel rather than CBS news. And work on USB, Flash Memory, USB, External Mini Harddisks, External Emulators, and Rapid Prototyping, rather for than the Society for the Advancement of Virtual Memory. And work on Multiplexed Fiber Optics, Compact Flourescent Lighting, Cyber Batteries, Holograms, and Self-Replicating Machines, rather than ASME Shock Loading Tests. And work on Desktop Publishing, Alll-in-One Printers, and Self- Assembling Robots, rather than D Cell Batteries. > 1. generalising about the properties of a class of objects based on > some number of observations of particular instances of that class (for > example, the inference that "all swans we have seen are white, and > therefore all swans are white," before the discovery of black swans) > or > > 2. presupposing that a sequence of events in the future will occur as > it always has in the past (for example, that the laws of physics will > hold as they have always been observed to hold). > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction > > ------------------------------------------ > > Two views of Deduction & Induction: > > View 1: conclusion; > Deduction = infers particular from general truths > Induction = infers general from particular truths > > View 2: conclusion; > Deduction = follows with absolute necessity > Induction = follows with some degree of probability > > Deduction and Induction From > Introduction to Logic Irving M. Copihttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0130749214/
From: PD on 22 Dec 2009 10:04 On Dec 21, 4:15 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > In article > <b6be57bb-a886-40a4-849d-57ee64af2...(a)m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, > > PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Deduction has the assurance of *force of argument* and that is useful > > in mathematics where axioms are taken to be objectively certain. > > The reasonableness of a good deductive argument has little to do with > the subject it is used in. Maths has nothing much and relevantly to do > with the matter. If I am testing whether my kettle always boils in under > two minutes and I find that if I fill it up to the top and it takes > three minutes to boil, the proposition is now known to be false that it > always boil in under two minutes. That is an experimental test. Note that this fact could not be determined by DEDUCTION from the previously known facts. It seems to me you don't really know what deduction and induction mean. > And nothing but deduction is involved, > no axioms, no fancy anything really. This mysterious induction is > nowhere to be seen in the process... and it is not needed anyway! <g> > > -- > dorayme
From: PD on 22 Dec 2009 10:08 On Dec 21, 4:24 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > In article > <fb230dc3-aa3e-42dc-9f93-9143b8b31...(a)e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On Dec 21, 3:49 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > In article > > > <2918984c-40d1-4a30-a535-e48577cf7...(a)g26g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, > > > > PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Dec 17, 12:12 am, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com..au> > > > > > > > > wrote:> > > > > > > > > In article <hgbr3n$vn...(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > > > ... > > > > > > > Anyway, why do you care whether inductive reasoning is or is not > > > > > > _called_ a "logical" process? > > > > > > Because there is a problem if it is not. The idea of logical is the > > > > > idea of some sort of objective necessity. > > > > > I disagree with this. That is true for deduction, but that is only one > > > > form of rational process for knowledge-gathering. Heck, not all > > > > knowledge is even objective. > > > > Knowledge is by definition objective. So I am not sure what you are > > > saying. > > > Don't be ridiculous. > > I beg your pardon? The word "knowledge" is used to indicate, at the very > least, success in having the truth on some matter. Yes. It is certainly TRUE to me that I exist. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind. There is nothing objective about it. It is also certainly true that even though my cousin is incapable of communication or movement, he loves me. This is a fact of which I'm certain. There is nothing objective about it. > It is an essential > requirement. There are others but the point is that this is a necessary > condition. Another essential requirement is for X to know p is that X is > not making a mere lucky guess. So there is a lot of objectivity built > into the notion. > > > Knowledge that is subjective certainly exists. > > Here's one: "I exist." PROVE that this is objectively true. > > Why do I have to do this? You seem to be confusing ontology with > epistemology. Because ontology and epistemology both have to do with the determination of truth. Though "I exist" is an ontological statement, there is an epistemological question about how the truth of that statement is determined.
From: PD on 22 Dec 2009 10:09 On Dec 21, 4:28 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > On Dec 22, 6:59 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > In science, nothing is ever > > proven. > > Oh so ewe cant ever prove that about science? idiot, check your > premises. > > > In this sense, nothing is deductively certain, either. > > So that's an example of something that is not deductively certain? > idiot, check your premises. > > MG ? What models in science do you take to be certain?
From: PD on 22 Dec 2009 10:15
On Dec 21, 4:33 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > In article > <16d16b5b-83b8-4523-82fa-9d71f9c90...(a)v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > ... > > > The theories are derived by the process of induction I described > > earlier. Please see my earlier note about this. > > I did see them and I commented on them. You are using the word induction > to wave at roughly *whatever scientists do* and that is not really > helpful. Oh, I think I was a little more elaborate than that. > > > From these theories, predictions are *deduced* from the models. > > > The experimental test involves neither deduction nor induction. It is > > a simple comparison -- the prediction and the measurement overlap or > > they don't. Period. > > No. Deduction is involved. If have the theory that my kettle will always > boil in under two minutes and I see it does not in certain conditions, > it is a deductive matter that the generalisation is false. It is an experimental test of an induced generalization. > > > Note, however, that a favorable bit of experimental evidence does not > > allow you to *deduce* anything about the truth of the theory. You only > > have a bit of experimental support. In science, nothing is ever > > proven. In this sense, nothing is deductively certain, either. > > It is the nature of this support that I am interested in. The > traditional philosophical problem of induction in philosophy has been > the difficulties with the idea that more and more cases consistent with > a generalization go to more and more confirm that generalisation. I am > denying this. And at no point does the generalization become completely confirmed. I don't know what issue you have with this. A theory makes statements of this sort: "We observe the pattern Y in circumstances A, B, and C. From this we induce that there is a common principle P that will predict pattern Y in circumstances A, B, and C. Furthermore this principle P also predicts pattern X in untested circumstances D and E, and pattern W in untested circumstances F, G, and H, and pattern V in untested circumstances I, J, K, and L." Then science goes about the process of locating or creating circumstances D through L. Every successful match of a circumstance and the predicted pattern increases the confidence in the induced principle P, even before all untested circumstances are tested. And in fact, most models do not exhaust untested circumstances, so there is always the opportunity to continue to test the induced principle. |