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: Michael Gordge on 27 Dec 2009 17:05 On Dec 28, 1:40 am, chazwin <chazwy...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > You were insisting that a device that could actually predict the fall > of a coin was already invented. Yes thats right, the same device that man used to send a space-ship to mars, its called a callculator being operated by some very clever and hard working human beings. > I also said that such a device would affect the outcome - measuring > actually changes the forces. The callculator didn't stop the space-ship landing on mars, just as it wont affect the outcome of a tossed coin. > So whilst it is POSSIBLE that such a device could be invented - It has, but which you reject. > it > would be, in effect a machine for throwing a coin in a particular way > to get either heads or tails. Oh there's a lot more information needed for the callculation than just the way the coin is tossed, chazzz, but this is encouraging, given your original stance was, it would land 50/50 no matter how it was tossed. Cant be botherer with the rest, but good to see you beginning to think for yourself. MG
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 27 Dec 2009 17:25 On Dec 28, 4:01 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > You, or someone, asked if a coin had been flipped 1,000 times and > produced 1,000 heads whether it was sound to consider that the 1,001 > flip would also be heads. The proper induction is Yes, it is likely to > be heads. Wrong answer in the context of the problem of induction. You are not listening to the noiseless parts of the thread. You and Zinnic started the noise as I have documented so don't get cute about this. There is no "proper induction" to yes. There may well be a reasonable belief in the next toss being heads, but what is under question here is what makes it reasonable and is this thing that makes it reasonable due to an identifiable form of argument ete etc etc as I have constantly explained. You keep on missing that I too would bet on a penny coming up heads again if it had really come up heads a thousand times in a row. It would clearly be a crook coin or something. But this is not the point. What the point is I have explained many many times and, because you don't *get* philosophy, you prefer to descend into trolling and personal abuse, you cannot see what the real issue is. Hume wrote about it and you show absolutely no understanding of his concerns. None at all. You don't even notice the questions you are begging in thinking how obviously one "properly" induces a conclusion. You don't notice because you are not concentrating on anything but the superficialities and the personal abuse which you are one of the main instigators of.
From: Michael Gordge on 27 Dec 2009 18:19 On Dec 28, 1:40 am, chazwin <chazwy...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > though the universe is > deterministic (which I have always maintained), You have always denied free will? You have always denied that people have or can make a choice between good and bad right and wrong? MG
From: John Stafford on 27 Dec 2009 20:36 In article <5bdbcbe8-8e48-47cd-b831-e8710616f043(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldoraz(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 28, 4:01�am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > > You, or someone, asked if a coin had been flipped 1,000 times and > > produced 1,000 heads whether it was sound to consider that the 1,001 > > flip would also be heads. The proper induction is Yes, it is likely to > > be heads. > > Wrong answer in the context of the problem of induction. You are not > listening to the noiseless parts of the thread. You and Zinnic started > the noise as I have documented so don't get cute about this. Incorrect. Your post (snipped) reflects _your_ penchant to the gambler's fallacy which is not applicable in this case. 1000 heads in a row is an indication that that the flip is biased, so the prediction for the next outcome, 1001, is perfectly a acceptable induction.
From: chazwin on 28 Dec 2009 04:45
On Dec 27, 10:05 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > On Dec 28, 1:40 am, chazwin <chazwy...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > You were insisting that a device that could actually predict the fall > > of a coin was already invented. > > Yes thats right, the same device that man used to send a space-ship to > mars, its called a callculator being operated by some very clever and > hard working human beings. There is no calculator that is able to predict the fall of a coin. There are too many factors that we are not able to measure when a coin is thrown from the hand. spin speed, angular velocity, distance to the table, force, air resistance, how bouncy the table is. > > > I also said that such a device would affect the outcome - measuring > > actually changes the forces. > > The callculator didn't stop the space-ship landing on mars, just as it > wont affect the outcome of a tossed coin. See above. > > > So whilst it is POSSIBLE that such a device could be invented - > > It has, but which you reject. See above. > > > it > > would be, in effect a machine for throwing a coin in a particular way > > to get either heads or tails. > > Oh there's a lot more information needed for the callculation than > just the way the coin is tossed, chazzz, but this is encouraging, > given your original stance was, it would land 50/50 no matter how it > was tossed. On average the coin lands 50/50 > > Cant be botherer with the rest, but good to see you beginning to think > for yourself. Sad to see that you think I will believe such bullshit that you offer as a solution > > MG |