From: John Stafford on
In article <hhktf2327l2(a)news5.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol>
wrote:

> 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.
>
> sure. It can be used as a preliminary tool but the thinking style
> does not create the knowledge directly. Let me try to write this
> again... it may be a preliminary step before the hypothesis can
> be verified in the lab. The thinking style cannot verify the
> theory.

Yes. Inductive reasoning is necessary to navigate ordinary reality which
is a construction of our senses. It is quite handy, but it is not
science.
From: John Stafford on
In article
<2793877f-e997-42f4-8b51-89f7eacb01d6(a)k23g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldoraz(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jan 1, 4:29�pm, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote:
> > In article
> > <1be708b1-f1b1-4920-8289-3f552c52a...(a)b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
> > �Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Humans use such inductive reasoning with their perception every day.
> >
> > > I can see you are not the slightest but aware of or touched by the
> > > problem of induction.
> >
> > Patricia, rather than just making such claims you would foster more
> > support by giving specific examples of how my understanding of induction
> > is not correct.
> >
>
> John, it is impossible to support the proposition that you show no
> understanding of the problem of induction because you simply show
> none.

PA, if my posts show you nothing, then you cannot learn or you are not
trying at all.

> Pointing to a website that has some sort of pattern recognition
> test is not you showing any understanding.

I consider that site an interesting and uncommon take on inductive
reasoning. If you had been paying attention to the other posts you would
know that I've a more inclusive perspective of what inductive reasoning
is.

> I have written thousands of
> my own words here saying what the problem is and what does *not* go to
> a solution and why. You seem to come in every now and then and make
> what seem like breathtakingly simplistic remarks like that induction
> leads to knowledge. Or that deduction depends on induction. You don't
> explain or analyse anything, you just come up with these obscure or
> facile things.

I believe in an economy of words. Philosophy should not be a contest of
who can be most verbose and obscure.
From: dorayme on
In article <hhktsd527l2(a)news5.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol>
wrote:

> Exactly. Thus, there is no such thing as "truth".

Hardly exact because many things are simply true. Among the many
confusions you exhibit, the one between ontology and epistemology
figures prominently in your 'philosophical' gropings...

--
dorayme
From: dorayme on
In article <hhku13627l2(a)news5.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol>
wrote:

> 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 :-).
>

That's funny, Mister O So Logical, I was thinking and seeing this very
same quality in you. Inexactitude, sloppy use of words, sloppy thinking,
ignorance about many distinctions which have been carefully honed over
hundreds if not thousands of years and nests of misunderstanding. And,
you know what, for *you* to come up with this accusation is laughable!

--
dorayme
From: dorayme on
In article <hhkud9029el(a)news5.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol>
wrote:

> >> The reason Patricia seems to be having difficulties
> >> in this discussion is because she keeps dismissing all talk
> >> about science and experiments, etc. From my point of view,
> >> that activity is the basis of all knowledge.
> >>
> >
> > The difficulties are all yours.
>
> Perhaps they are all mine; ... This
> thread is posted in sci.physics and dismissing the
> Scientific Method from the discussion as not important is
> wrong. Period.

There is no Period, you pompous authoritarian fool. No one has dismissed
'Scientific Method'. You are a posting and intellectual coward, show and
don't merely say. Where is so called Scientific Method *dismissed*?
Where exactly? You do not understand the issues at all, you have not a
single clue about it and yet you publicly feel the right to parade your
great ignorance.

--
dorayme