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: chazwin on 28 Dec 2009 04:59 On Dec 27, 9:55 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 27, 9:52 pm, chazwin <chazwy...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On Dec 27, 5:56 am, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > A random event is an event for which there is no reason for it to have > > > happened the way it did rather than another way. > > > But can such an event EVER take place? > > Is not the throw of a penny bound by the laws of physics? > > Yes, sure. But it depends on what the physics is, it is not the direct > concern of the philosopher in this issue of induction. The assertion as to whether there are truly random events is of vital importance in the question of induction. If you can't see that then you will be forever running round in circles with this question. It is > irrelevant in a way: the penny example is a mere example of an ideal > random event. The main relevant feature of such an example is to > illustrate that mere sequence does not give ground for reasoning to > above 50% for the next outcome. Something more is needed. What 'more' is needed is that you need to abandon the fiction that there is any such thing as a real random event. One the penny leaves the hand it is set on a course of action that is determined by the force and sped of the the throw, the spin of the coin, the resistance of the air, and the reflective ability of the table and the coin. > > There is a lot more to good reasoning that cannot be described as > deductive. All deduction can do is to confirm an anticipation, either good or ill. Once a deduction is made is inevitably is used only to confirm its own premise. Induction is the only thing able to find something new. > But I have yet to see some one element that can be usefully > called an inductive element. Eh? What do yo mean by 'element'? So far, as I have said so many times, > merely describing the brilliant reasoning of scientists (and the > literature is chock o block of the stories of investigations and > successes). > > > > So, the penny example > > > is rather nice, we imagine a totally evenly made penny tossed by a > > > process we do not know and it could come up heads or tails there being > > > nothing to go on to say which way it will come down. > > > How would this be possible? > > What quite is the *relevant* difficulty you are imagining? Tossed by a process we do not know?
From: Y.Porat on 28 Dec 2009 05:22 On Dec 27, 4:46 pm, Aleph <Usenet....(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > In article <461224e9-e767-4343-930b-5556eee769b7 > @m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, sent to sci.physics on Fri, 25 Dec 2009 > 23:28:04 -0800 (PST), Y.Porat <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> imparted these words > of wisdom: > > > i start to suspect that actually > > Aleph = PD .......!! > > Dont you get bored of being wrong? > > Please try to spend a little less time thinking I am someone else or a > little more time learning science. > > > 2 > > until now i was looking for PD s innovations > > and found not6hing !!! > > Your failure to use google is no one elses problem. > > > so we have here an abstract philosopher parrot > > Blah, blah. > > -- > Aleph > > This article was posted to USENET, please reply in that manner. Emails > to this account will be ignored. ---------------- i start to - even more -suspect that: Aleph =PD ..... Y.P -----------------------
From: Zinnic on 28 Dec 2009 05:25 On Dec 27, 3:55 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 27, 9:52 pm, chazwin <chazwy...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On Dec 27, 5:56 am, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > A random event is an event for which there is no reason for it to have > > > happened the way it did rather than another way. > > > But can such an event EVER take place? > > Is not the throw of a penny bound by the laws of physics? > > Yes, sure. But it depends on what the physics is, it is not the direct > concern of the philosopher in this issue of induction. It is > irrelevant in a way: the penny example is a mere example of an ideal > random event. The main relevant feature of such an example is to > illustrate that mere sequence does not give ground for reasoning to > above 50% for the next outcome. Something more is needed. Jeeez Pa------aaatricia, let us move on, we all are aware of this. But in reality lo--------ooong sequences in reality do happen to repeat. That is why we do not step off a precipice and ignore your 50% chance that we will walk on air. >There is a lot more to good reasoning that cannot be described as > deductive. But I have yet to see some one element that can be usefully > called an inductive element. So far, as I have said so many times, > merely describing the brilliant reasoning of scientists (and the > literature is chock o block of the stories of investigations and > successes). So describe "good reasoning" that is neither deductive nor inductive! Please include in your answer "the brilliant reasonings of scientists",
From: Zinnic on 28 Dec 2009 05:36 On Dec 27, 4:04 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 28, 12:06 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > > > Philosophy is not my strong point...not even my medium point ;-). > > And it will never be unless you read and try to understand the many > posts I have made with a lot of actual argument instead of being > distracted by the posts that are to do with trolls that also do not > understand philosophy. > > What do you think you know about science that is relevant to the > problem of induction that I do not know? Perhaps you should detail > these things instead of making your silly opinions public. Hi Patsy! I guess that uncalled for 'put down' really recharged your ego. Need I say more? Hey! Patsy/dorayme hates me more than the rest of you folks. Smirk!
From: John Stafford on 28 Dec 2009 08:19
In article <0835d1d7-b36f-4e0e-b50d-505c9c9fe6a5(a)j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldoraz(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 28, 12:36�pm, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > In article > > <5bdbcbe8-8e48-47cd-b831-e8710616f...(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, > > �Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(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. > > > > The only interest I have in the Gambler's Fallacy is that it is an > illustration that *mere sequence* and the piling up of data points is > no ingredient in strengthening an argument. That is far, far too general a statement to be useful, and besides the point of the case of the fallacy is not argument, but prediction. > As I have said before, you simply don't *get* what philosophy is > about. You have no idea whatsoever of my understanding because you are only beginning to learn to think. |