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: Zinnic on 30 Dec 2009 10:59 On Dec 29, 4:30 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > In article <hhcuo402...(a)news2.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> > wrote: > > > > > > > Patricia Aldoraz wrote: > > > On Dec 28, 11:31 pm, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > > >> Patricia Aldoraz 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? > > >> You don't know anything about the Scientific Method nor how > > >> it is used in science. > > > > Your evidence for this? > > > Your writing. > > This is not an answer to the question you were asked. If you have some > evidence that someone who questions the notion that there is an > inductive form of argument (and the details of this questioning are > important to understand this skepticism), does not understand science, > give the evidence, give the argument. Show and do not merely sit there > saying. > > What is it that you know that is crucial to understanding what makes for > the force in forceful argument of a non-deductive kind? In a deductive > argument it is that it makes no logical sense to deny the conclusion > after accepting the premises or that it is a plain self contradiction. > > If you are accusing someone of not understanding science, give the > crucial evidence. Show at least what someone would say to answer the > puzzles of the problem of induction if they *did* understand the > processes of science and show how this answer is a good one and depends > crucially on understanding something that the history of science books > have repeated ad nauseum for at least 70 years. (You seem to think it is > some sort of abstruse secret) > > > Now, are you familiar with the activity known as > > "proof by induction"? (I have a bad feeling that you've > > not taken any math courses.) > > Before demanding the answer to this question, how about showing its > relevance to the well known and traditional problem of induction in > philosophy. Do some philosophy, don't just sit there making ignorant > remarks. Mathematical induction has no *obvious* connection to the sort > of argument that people regularly use to jump to a conclusion like that > all the birds are quite silent on a particular island that is being > visited for the first time. As the days go on and the birds are observed > and the silence continues, the data points and the premises grow and the > argument is strengthed. This has no obvious connection with mathematical > induction. > > Mathematical induction is a form of deductive reasoning. It is just that > you have no real conception what deductive reasoning really is, you > probably think it is some old fuddy duddy thing that has simple forms > and that Aristotle had the last word on this or something. > > -- > dorayme Woo hoo! I see that you respond obediently to Paricia's call. Has the dummy learned to pull the ventriloquists strings? You wrote the following confusion-- ".....the sort of argument that people regularly use to jump to a conclusion like that all the birds are quite silent on a particular island that is being visited for the first time. As the days go on and the birds are observed and the silence continues, the data points and the premises grow and the argument is strengthed (sic)." What premises grrow and what is the argument to which your refer? That there are birds on the island. That the birds in the island are silent. Therefore - the birds on the island are dumb ? Snicker. Under what general circumstances does this argument have a reasonable form? Whatever the "argument" is, even if you deny it is induction, explain how the continued silence strengthens it as a deduction when it can be invalidated by a single sqwauk! Nice chatting with you again Zinnic
From: Zinnic on 30 Dec 2009 11:12 On Dec 29, 4:35 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > In article <kvf6jv....(a)spenarnc.xs4all.nl>, > Albert van der Horst <alb...(a)spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote: > > > > > > > In article <7ppprvFde...(a)mid.individual.net>, > > Rod Speed <rod.speed....(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >chazwin wrote: > > >> On Dec 27, 5:56 am, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> > > >> wrote: > > >>> On Dec 27, 4:11 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > > > >>>> On Dec 27, 1:40 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> > > >>>> wrote: > > > >>>>> To understand this concept, you need to > > >>>>> have firmly understood the concept of a random even. > > > >>>> I firmly understand the dopey concept random, random has only one > > >>>> use, its what ewe Kantian clowns call an event that you cant explain > > >>>> rationally / practically, when you avoid / run away from reason. > > > >>> This is sort of close. A random event, what was dorayme's > > >>> formulation, anyone remember? (Woo hoo dorayme, are you there? It's > > >>> Patricia here!) > > > >>> 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? > > > >Yes, most obviously with radioactive decay where which > > >atom decays at a particular instant really is random. > > As I have explained before, there are two ways to jump on the idea of > random event. One way is to think of it in relation to the evidence we > have. In this way, it does not matter at all about whether some event is > "really" random. In this way of the idea, something is random if we have > no way at all in fact of knowing which way it will turn out. > > The other way is built on this notion but has a twist: a *really* random > event is one that no matter what we could know about it in this world, > no matter how clever we were or what evidence we collected or how fast > and accurate our calculating abilities or machines, we would still be > quite unable to predict one way or the other. > > -- > dorayme Jeez! Now ignorance of a cause is identical to absence of a cause. So, were eclipses of heavenly bodies random events before they could be predicted? If you are unable to answer maybe your patsy Patriciaa will oblige. Zinnic
From: PD on 30 Dec 2009 13:53 On Dec 29, 4:35 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > In article <kvf6jv....(a)spenarnc.xs4all.nl>, > Albert van der Horst <alb...(a)spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote: > > > > > In article <7ppprvFde...(a)mid.individual.net>, > > Rod Speed <rod.speed....(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >chazwin wrote: > > >> On Dec 27, 5:56 am, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> > > >> wrote: > > >>> On Dec 27, 4:11 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > > > >>>> On Dec 27, 1:40 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> > > >>>> wrote: > > > >>>>> To understand this concept, you need to > > >>>>> have firmly understood the concept of a random even. > > > >>>> I firmly understand the dopey concept random, random has only one > > >>>> use, its what ewe Kantian clowns call an event that you cant explain > > >>>> rationally / practically, when you avoid / run away from reason. > > > >>> This is sort of close. A random event, what was dorayme's > > >>> formulation, anyone remember? (Woo hoo dorayme, are you there? It's > > >>> Patricia here!) > > > >>> 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? > > > >Yes, most obviously with radioactive decay where which > > >atom decays at a particular instant really is random. > > As I have explained before, there are two ways to jump on the idea of > random event. One way is to think of it in relation to the evidence we > have. In this way, it does not matter at all about whether some event is > "really" random. In this way of the idea, something is random if we have > no way at all in fact of knowing which way it will turn out. > > The other way is built on this notion but has a twist: a *really* random > event is one that no matter what we could know about it in this world, > no matter how clever we were or what evidence we collected or how fast > and accurate our calculating abilities or machines, we would still be > quite unable to predict one way or the other. > > -- > dorayme But here there is an interesting development. If there are local "hidden" variables that determine behavior in a strictly deterministic fashion, then certain experiments can root out their presence, even without knowing what the variables are. This is the point of Bell's Theorem. And follow-up experiments by Aspect et al., demonstrated that nature does not employ local variables that just happen to be hidden from us. PD
From: PD on 30 Dec 2009 13:55 On Dec 29, 4:43 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > On Dec 30, 3:44 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > None of these are axiomatic certainties. > > Hahahhahahahah, hahahahhahhah I'm sorry I cant stop laughing, how does > axiomatic change the meaning of certainty? > > MG Well, for one thing, "axiom" means something very specific. It is a statement that is *presumed* to be true without proof or evidence, upon which derivations of other statements can be made. PD
From: PD on 30 Dec 2009 13:57
On Dec 30, 1:20 am, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > On Dec 30, 11:31 am, Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > In the above-quoted sentence, "axiomatic" functions as > > an adjective. It changes the meaning of the following > > noun via the rules of English syntax. > > Shrug, how does the adjective axiomatic change the meaning of > certainty. > > MG Observational evidence is distinguished from axiomatic statements, though both are taken to have some level of certainty. Axiomatic statements are presumed to be true WITHOUT proof by dint of observational evidence, though in most cases axioms are *consistent* with observational evidence. PD |