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: Keth on 23 Dec 2009 09:46 On Dec 23, 9:00 am, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Dec 23, 12:45 am, Keth <kethiswo...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 23, 8:51 am, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > On Dec 23, 2:43 pm, Keth <kethiswo...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Causation has strict order, > > > > Not really, or not that it is so obvious. A set of table legs can > > > cause a table to be very stable, but they do not somehow act in prior > > > time. > > > Four legs are not the cause of the stableness of table, the real > > cause is the physical force corresponding to the structure of the > > table. When one pushes the table, a force is generated towards the > > other direction, which generates a counter-force by the legs on the > > other side. All these forces take time to reach equilibrium. > > > Use flexible material for the legs and we can actually observe the > > time it takes to reach the equilibrium. With legs of rigid material, > > the forces reach equilibrium almost instantly. > > > The underlying causation is force. And the action of force takes > > time. Force A -> effect B is a time delayed causation. I thought this > > is common knowledge. > > I'm not sure the definition of force as the rate of change of momentum > with respect to time is common knowledge. At least it should be a common knowledge (or required knowledge) to those who wants to discuss causation. I tend to think that we often ignore these causations in our discussion of knowledge system. Some of these things are not known to Aristotle or Kant, so they did not include them in their writings. But people in modern society should. > > > > One exception to the rule is logical causation and mathematical > > > > causation, > > > There is no such thing, you have invented these terms. > > > > > which does not involve time. Logical and mathematical > > > > causation are formative translations. For example, 2+2=4 and AUB=BUA > > > > do not involve time. Strictly speaking these are not causation since > > > > there is no time delay. > > > > This is a confusion of thought. They are piling up. > > > Logical and mathematical transformations are often used in deduction > > method as if they are causation during the calculation process. Where > > is the confusion? > > I'm curious as to what transformations you are refering to. Do you > mean conditionals? I am referring to the logical and mathematical equations. For example 2+2=4 or AUB=BUA. These equations transform one form to another. Though they start out as pure concepts, they have empirical implications. For example 2+2 = 4 can be simulated with assembling two groups of 2 people together, and we get 4 people. By doing so, we verify that the condition "two adds two" will generate the result "four" in a time domain. When not simulating these equations (in a time domain causal form), the logical and mathematics transformations stand true on themselves in timeless domain. This is why they are a priori knowledge.
From: Shrikeback on 23 Dec 2009 13:02 On Dec 15, 6:51 pm, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > Inductive reasoning is the weakest kind of argument in the light of > Deductive Reasoning. However, we must look to its utility: for one, it > keeps Deductive Reasoning honest, or as honest as it can be. > > One cannot exist without the other. There is a form of inductive reasoning that is formal and as strong as any other: Statement S(1) is true. Statement S(n) implies Statement S(n+1). Therefore, S(n) is true for all n.
From: M Purcell on 23 Dec 2009 13:19 On Dec 23, 10:02 am, Shrikeback <shrikeb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 15, 6:51 pm, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > > Inductive reasoning is the weakest kind of argument in the light of > > Deductive Reasoning. However, we must look to its utility: for one, it > > keeps Deductive Reasoning honest, or as honest as it can be. > > > One cannot exist without the other. > > There is a form of inductive reasoning that is formal > and as strong as any other: > > Statement S(1) is true. > Statement S(n) implies Statement S(n+1). > Therefore, S(n) is true for all n. This is a deductive argument, there seems to be continued confusion about the difference between inductive reasoning and mathematical induction.
From: dorayme on 23 Dec 2009 15:15 In article <4a506dbb-ff8b-43b2-af0c-4902f2dc7415(a)m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 22, 3:45 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > In article > > <48527643-dddf-4bd9-bc2c-ffdb123a3...(a)o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, > > > > PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > It seems to me you don't really know what deduction and induction > > > mean. > > > > Does it now, and what am I missing from an understanding of deduction > > itself that you are *not* missing? > > > > Let us just concentrate on this particular thing first and we we will > > move to induction again later. What is your evidence that I do not > > understand what *deduction* is? I wait to learn from you. Deduction, not > > any other thing... > > Deduction is a process of thinking that produces conclusions from > assumed premises. No other information other than what is in the > premises is required for deduction. > > Comparison of a theory with experimental data is not a process of > deduction. It is a simple comparison to see if the statement *deduced* > from certain theoretical premises matches what is actually observed in > nature. This is not an answer that lays out evidence that I don't know what deduction is. That is the first point. The second is that you are failing to distinguish, probably because you are unaware of it, the deductive argument itself from the psychological processes of thinking one through. One is about something somewhat abstract. All the logic books are concerned with this something. And about this something, I have said that the defining feature is that the conclusion cannot be false if the premises are true. But, this, according to you, is not good enough to qualify that I understand what deduction is. -- dorayme
From: Michael Gordge on 23 Dec 2009 15:16
On Dec 24, 3:19 am, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > This is a deductive argument, there seems to be continued confusion > about the difference between inductive reasoning and mathematical > induction. Hey dopey, dopey Timmm needs a hand, how does inductive reasoning differ from reasoning? What 'modifications' does the adjective inductive do to reasoning? What does the modified inductive reasoning do that reasoning on its own doesn't. What meaning are ewe Kantian clowns giving for reasoning prior to modifying it by preceeding it with the adjective inductive? MG |