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 31 Dec 2009 09:08 On Dec 30, 9:19 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 31, 1:39 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Quote from one of your earlier posts:- > > > "In the search for what might be the "reasonable part" of so called > > inductive processes, one can declare that there are forms in the way > > that there are forms of deductive arguments or one might simply note > > that not all deductive arguments have a form but are simply such that > > one cannot reasonably assert the premises and deny the conclusion and > > be reasonable in doing so. Either way, the problem of induction is to > > identify if there is *any general circumstances* that can be > > described in which one can assert a set of premises > > and conclude something where > > it would always be unreasonable to deny that at least the premises > > give the conclusion some weight of probability." > > > You have agreed in earlier posts that the longer a sequence of > > identical outcomes, then the stronger becomes your suspicion that > > there is an underlying causative factor for the repetition ( I am > > aware that the repetition is not itself causative). > > That is, as the repetition continues it is "reasonable" (your word in > > the above quote) for a mere suspicion to become an assumption and, > > eventually, a confident 'assertion' that the repetition will continue > > (despite the fact that certainty is not attained.) > > > Explain how the quote from your post above is not simply your 'dance > > on the head of a pin' in a convulated attempt to eliminate induction > > as a reasonable means of assuming/asserting premisses used in a > > subsequent deduction. This is blatent conflaltion of induction and > > deduction. > > What kind of jumbled inarticulate question is this? But I will cut you > some slack because you are being reasonably polite (which I > appreciate). > > Basically what you want to know is how can I reconcile my skepticism > about induction being any sort of good argument with my admitted > enthusiasm for happily betting on the next throw being a tails after > the penny has constantly come down tails and never heads in a long > sequence. > > Simple my dear Watson, I don't think my bet is based on inductive form > of argument. I don't think there is such a form. It is a deduction > from a theory I happen to hold. This theory is that the coin is a > crook one, is weighted and will come down tails. I may well have > formed the theory on the basis of psychological imperatives to do with > sequences inducing (causing) things to happen to my brain. But causes > to dream up theories is not the stuff of arguments. > > More later... you are getting warmer and starting to ask the right > questions. Be nice now!- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Thank you for your courtesy (following the first sentence of your post!). Here you admit that you have a theory in which you claim to ELIMINATE the inductive element of argument by encompassing it in deduction. No induction, all deduction! With respect I submit that you simply beg the question with your ".... sequences 'inducing' (causing) things to happen to my brain". (my scare quotes). You need to explain why you believe this is not inductive reasoning that leads to knowledge! That is, the affirmative of this thread's topic. I am aware that you may not be interested in responding. So be it, Amen Have a good year Zinnic.
From: jmfbahciv on 31 Dec 2009 09:30 John Stafford wrote: > In article > <e6657e15-0ffc-4904-a0c8-6c95f8f8b4cf(a)j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, > Zinnic <zeenric2(a)gate.net> wrote: > >> On Dec 29, 6:00 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> [...] > >> You have agreed in earlier posts that the longer a sequence of >> identical outcomes, then the stronger becomes your suspicion that >> there is an underlying causative factor for the repetition ( I am >> aware that the repetition is not itself causative). >> That is, as the repetition continues it is "reasonable" (your word in >> the above quote) for a mere suspicion to become an assumption and, >> eventually, a confident 'assertion' that the repetition will continue >> (despite the fact that certainty is not attained.) > > In an inductive argument, the observation of a consistent behavior can > be a premise. The premise need only be strong enough that _if they are > true_, then the conclusion is _likely_ to be true. This is quite unlike > deductive reasoning where a _valid argument and sound conclusion_ are > guaranteed to be true. > <snip> So the answer to the title's question is no; however, inductive reasoning can lead to a correct premise. Am I getting this stuff or am I still not understanding what you're saying. /BAH
From: Zinnic on 31 Dec 2009 09:49 On Dec 31, 8:30 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > John Stafford wrote: > > In article > > <e6657e15-0ffc-4904-a0c8-6c95f8f8b...(a)j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, > > Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > > >> On Dec 29, 6:00 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> [...] > > >> You have agreed in earlier posts that the longer a sequence of > >> identical outcomes, then the stronger becomes your suspicion that > >> there is an underlying causative factor for the repetition ( I am > >> aware that the repetition is not itself causative). > >> That is, as the repetition continues it is "reasonable" (your word in > >> the above quote) for a mere suspicion to become an assumption and, > >> eventually, a confident 'assertion' that the repetition will continue > >> (despite the fact that certainty is not attained.) > > > In an inductive argument, the observation of a consistent behavior can > > be a premise. The premise need only be strong enough that _if they are > > true_, then the conclusion is _likely_ to be true. This is quite unlike > > deductive reasoning where a _valid argument and sound conclusion_ are > > guaranteed to be true. > > <snip> > > So the answer to the title's question is no; however, inductive > reasoning can lead to a correct premise. > > Am I getting this stuff or am I still not understanding what > you're saying. I am interested in how you reason to exclude "correct premise" from your definition of knowledge. Z
From: John Stafford on 31 Dec 2009 12:23 In article <hhibq82e19(a)news3.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > John Stafford wrote: > > In article > > <e6657e15-0ffc-4904-a0c8-6c95f8f8b4cf(a)j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, > > Zinnic <zeenric2(a)gate.net> wrote: > > > >> On Dec 29, 6:00 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> [...] > > > >> You have agreed in earlier posts that the longer a sequence of > >> identical outcomes, then the stronger becomes your suspicion that > >> there is an underlying causative factor for the repetition ( I am > >> aware that the repetition is not itself causative). > >> That is, as the repetition continues it is "reasonable" (your word in > >> the above quote) for a mere suspicion to become an assumption and, > >> eventually, a confident 'assertion' that the repetition will continue > >> (despite the fact that certainty is not attained.) > > > > In an inductive argument, the observation of a consistent behavior can > > be a premise. The premise need only be strong enough that _if they are > > true_, then the conclusion is _likely_ to be true. This is quite unlike > > deductive reasoning where a _valid argument and sound conclusion_ are > > guaranteed to be true. > > > <snip> > > So the answer to the title's question is no; however, inductive > reasoning can lead to a correct premise. Inductive reasoning can lead to practical and theoretical understanding, which is knowledge.
From: John Stafford on 31 Dec 2009 12:34
In article <hhib670e19(a)news3.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > If a person is color-blind, it will be impossible to talk about red > things. I've been trying to find out if Patricia has any > knowledge about the hard sciences and/or math. Since we are writing in a setting that permits science, please note that it is possible to induce the experience of seeing red even in a blind person. It is done using (get this) inductive magnetics. > Some of the people > who are frustrating her happen to be talking about science and > how knowledge is gained in those areas. > > I've been reading this thread to see if somebody can give > an example of the use of inductive reasoning. So far, nobody > has. And I'm posting from sci.physics. The following link shows an interesting interpretation, and test of inductive reasoning. It is purely visual. No science required. And it is easy. http://www.shldirect.com/inductive_reasoning.html |