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: jmfbahciv on 1 Jan 2010 08:47 John Stafford wrote: > In article <hhian61d4f(a)news3.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> > wrote: > >> John Stafford wrote: > >>> Shouldn't we keep mathematic's proof by induction separate from >>> inductive reasoning? >> It's the only thing I know which has been used to lead to knowledge. > > Knowledge of Natural Numbers, and what else? It's used as proofs for summations; IIRC, Diff. Eq. books use this a lot. > >>> The subject is inductive reasoning which is not >>> particularly rigorous except in special cases, IMHO. >> So you're saying that inductive reasoning is not the method >> used in math. I don't see how the not-math type of thinking >> could lead to any knowledge without some form of rigorous >> method, especially in science. > > Inductive reasoning can occur in math, but in math the term 'inductive > proof' is most common and entirely different that that used in > philosophy which is 'inductive reason' (note - no claim of proof). I see. You guys are talking about something very different. If there is no claim of proof, then the reasoning cannot verify the hypothesis nor a theory. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 1 Jan 2010 08:53 dorayme wrote: > In article <hhian61d4f(a)news3.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> > wrote: > >>> The subject is inductive reasoning which is not >>> particularly rigorous except in special cases, IMHO. >> So you're saying that inductive reasoning is not the method >> used in math. > > He is not saying any such thing. If you had a single clue about > philosophy, you would understand this. > Honey, the way you philosophers think is muddy, foggy, and not logical from my point of view. A lot of this talk reminds me of the humanities class which was a requirement in college. Lots of nonsense, which is fun to yak about, but won't put food on the table nor fix the plumbing :-). /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 1 Jan 2010 09:03 Patricia Aldoraz wrote: > On Jan 1, 1:08 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: >> 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. >> 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! >> > > I cannot eliminate something I am unsure is there to begin with. What > I am pretty sure of is that no argument that really has the form of > traditionally understood inductive arguments, the form of which has > been given a number of times in this thread. > > >> 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 have explained, it is that such a * form* of reasoning is hopelessly > without any force. I just don't think there is a special form of > *good* inductive reasoning that can be contrasted to good deductive > reasoning. > > There is no logical procedures to gaining or expanding knowledge. But there is. It is called the Scientific Method. This is the sanity check for science. >It > is a matter of dreaming up (that is a human pattern groping activity) > general patterns and being unable to think of any better fit to all > the data. This is an inability as much as an ability. Our limitations > are a strength. The bit that checks to see if a pattern fits the data > is a deductive bit. But that is only part of a human activity. There > is no inductive bit of *reasoning* unless you merely are using this > word to wave your hand towards "whatever the hell scientists do in > general apart from deducing stuff" > The Scientific Method is not a handwave. I'll ask again. Do you know anything about it? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 1 Jan 2010 09:08 Patricia Aldoraz wrote: > On Jan 1, 4:23 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.net> wrote: > >> Inductive reasoning can lead to practical and theoretical understanding, >> which is knowledge. > > Such a wonderfully instructive and enlightening statement at this > stage! Christ! No, his name John. So you have that one wrong, too. I'm beginning to think that you have no idea what knowledge is... other than the circular word salads you write. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 1 Jan 2010 09:17
John Stafford wrote: > 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. Yes, I can see that. But it's used as a tool. It cannot be [I don't know how to phrase this] the proof. IOW, if I can state that "x was produced by using inductive reasoning, then x has to be true.", then I'm saying that the only "proof" I need is the fact I used inductive reasoning. Frankly, this stinks :-). If you hand me a foobar with kind of line, I'm going to go to the lab and test the foobar on my own. /BAH |