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 21:06 3, 5:49 pm, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > We can transform the former form to the latter through the operator > > "add". Adding two pairs together create a condition that can be > > transformed to one group of four. > > What condition? Equivalence? A condition is basically a trigger of certain rules. In the time domain, a given condition will trigger certain underlying mechanism and turns one equilibrium state into another state. For example, lighting gasoline creates a condition that triggers explosion. A condition in the timeless domain is a trigger to activate certain rules of certainty. For example, the mathematic rule asserts A*(B+C) =A*B+A*C. A term 2*999999999+2*1 triggers this rule so that we can transform the calculation into simpler form 2*(999999999+1) = 1000000000. > > I already explain that transformation like this can be emulated with > > operation "add" in a time domain. > > Emulated? How is it different? The difference is in application. When we do calculation with logical or mathematical transformations, we treat the operands as actual actions in time domain. For example, add is like an actual action of addition. In timeless domain, it is not an action, just a notion to transform.
From: Keth on 23 Dec 2009 21:24 On Dec 23, 7:41 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 23, 9:04 pm, Keth <kethiswo...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Are you sure 4 legs make a stable table? Try to make a table with 4 > > paper legs. > > Is that what you would ask a host before placing your valuable laptop > on her table. You would merely note it had four legs and you would > have many background assumptions. You would not tremble before > ridiculous possibilities. Well, a normal rational person would not. > But, of course, you are playing philosophy and so you think you have > to be a bit ridiculous. Why? It appears to me that YOU are playing philosophy. I am merely pointed out the danger of using common sense rather than the actual causation. Let me remind you that the concept of stability of an object such as a building can be a serious matter and deserves stress analysis rather than just a philosophical discourse. This is a misuse of philosophy and should be avoided. This kind of thinking can not generate any useful conclusion. The discussion of stability based on common sense is not a good way to analyze the causation. You are the one that claimed four legs is the cause of stable table. > > Most of the time your way of thinking works. > > And what quite is that way? Perhaps you are reading in too much. > Jumping to conclusions. I simply noted that a table can be caused to > be stable by having more legs sometimes. It is not a way of thinking, > it is plain common sense. You do not have to throw common sense out > when you do philosophy, you have been misled badly somewhere along the > way. You will learn nothing much here on this usenet group unless you > get very very lucky. I am referring to the thinking by categories. As our discussion shows, deduction with category terms runs the danger of making false conclusion. > > But there is physical > > causation at play on the deeper level when you talk about physical > > objects. > > No matter how deep you go, you can object that it is not deep enough. > ou are setting yourself up for failure. > ... This is very true, and mankind certainly is far from understanding the deep level causation. For example the true nature of force is still a mystery. But we cannot ignore what we have found so far simply because they are not perfect knowledge yet.
From: Zinnic on 23 Dec 2009 23:21 On Dec 23, 7:24 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 24, 7:46 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.net> wrote: > > > In article <doraymeRidThis-C0B1D9.07153124122...(a)news.albasani.net>, > > > dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > 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. > > > Technically, deduction concerns the construction of an argument (to be > > valid or invalid) _and_ whether it is sound or unsound. > > What is this supposed to mean. A deductive argument is simply one > where the premises entail the conclusion, where the conclusion cannot > be false if the premises are true. Why start throwing up these verbal > clouds around it? > > > Your observation > > concerns the later in which the argument is sound or not. When the > > premises are correct in a simple deductive argument, then the argument > > is sound. When you make a claim that the conclusion must be true in this > > case, then you leave deductive reasoning and enter into another kind of > > reasoning or logic. > > What on earth are you talking about? Where is this need for induction > and what is this induction about which you speak. > > Are you trying to say something clever like perhaps: > > When a human actually uses a deductive argument, he looks at the first > premise, then he looks at the second and so on. He has to *remember* > what the premises are. So when he gets to the conclusion and it > appears unavoidable, he is assuming that it is unavoidable on the > premises he has just witnessed. But perhaps he is *misremembering*. > > He comforts himself by the thought that he has not misremembered short > argument premises in the past and he is probably not misremembering on > this occasion... and perhaps this is a reliance on so called inductive > reasoning. > > I don't know, I am trying to help you here, it is your baby. Before > you write, try to think slowly and carefully and understand what you > are really saying. > > > All men are mortal > > Socrates is a man > > Socrates is mortal > > > Is that a valid deductive argument? Well, we can look to temporal > > logical requisites. > > > Men are mortal (now). > > Socrates is dead. > > > It is not a sound argument unless we loosen up a bit and agree to > > conventions, however strict logic includes temporal logic which takes us > > from deduction to the natural world. > > Ah, I see you are just simply confused. In > > All men are mortal > Socrates is a man > Socrates is mortal > > these are traditionally thought to be timeless statements. That is, > one simply assumes that 'Socrates is a man' just means to refer to the > Socrates that lived at such and such a time. In other words we are > meant to understand a time stamp inside the statements, or a n > expansion of the description of 'Socrates'. C'mon Patricia, admit that doreme is fingering your keyboard. His silence speaks volumes.
From: Michael Gordge on 23 Dec 2009 23:33 On Dec 24, 10:02 am, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > This is not the inductive reasoning being talked about in the > traditional problem of philosophy. Timmmm needs a hand to explain what meaning reasoning had before ewe Kantian fuckwits preceed it with the adjective inductive? MG
From: Zinnic on 24 Dec 2009 00:32
On Dec 23, 6:54 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 24, 1:16 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > > > pattern recognition is a rational process. > > You really have no clue what quite this means or in what context it is > appropriate to say it and what context it is inappropriate. You daft > scrambled egg! > > > The conclusion that the pattern will continue completes the > > induction, whether or not it is acted on is irrelevant. > > What a garbled silly thing to say. > > Pattern recognition is something animals do, like they walk. What an irrelevant thing to say. You are implying that animals possess no rationality! Recognition of complex patterns and recognition of their significance is essential for the survival of advanced organisms. Even chemistry causing a randomly walking bacterial cell to ascend a nutritional gradient is only one stage in the evolution of rationality. Stick to your silly abstractions of philosophical jargon and it will get you nowhere! |