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: John Stafford on 1 Jan 2010 21:18 In article <5dbfc7ad-9747-4845-8441-0831e12eda91(a)f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldoraz(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 2, 12:29�pm, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > In article > > <8d587a0d-cbd3-4c4d-bb26-572ba990b...(a)35g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, > > �Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jan 2, 9:46�am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > > > In article <doraymeRidThis-CCD299.08503302012...(a)news.albasani.net>, > > > > > > �dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > You will understand nothing whatever further by going to the trouble. > > > > > Stafford himself does not understand what the traditional problem of > > > > > induction is. > > > > > > I understand what the so-called problem of induction is said to be, > > > > however I asserted earlier that induction is not intended to deliver a > > > > conclusion as a certainty. That's the task of a valid and sound > > > > deduction. Valid/invalid sound/unsound are technical requisites of > > > > deduction, not induction. > > > > > You go wrong immediately. Inductive skeptics like Hume (and count me > > > in too) Name-dropping is not contributory. You are not Hume. You do not even understand what he has written. > are not asking for certainty. They are asking for probability > > > or some reason to believe on the basis of the data that is often > > > paraded as the premises in so called inductive argument. Brief enough > > > for you? > > > > You have not read enough of Hume. Go back to the books. Learn up. In the > > end, he recognized induction as a most useful method of acquiring > > knowledge. > > > You are a superficial clod and do not understand what the problem is. > Brief enough for you? I understand the problem perfectly. No more hand-waving, PA. It's not working for you. Apparently you are fostering an intellectual abscess rather than a thought. You are spewing hate and resentment rather than making considered responses. You could begin to contribute by making a claim, then write a supportive argument. You have muddled the whole thread with spewing insults and innuendo. Start again clean with your claim, then we can study your supportive argument. You know, we might not disagree after all, but you will not know until you get rid of this demon of yours.
From: John Stafford on 1 Jan 2010 21:19 In article <ef8efe56-8b7e-46f9-866f-3b0a364927c0(a)a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldoraz(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 2, 12:45�pm, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > jmfbahciv is not a man. > > > > He must be a man. A woman would not be such a jerk. He is like you, > superficial and ignorant and bombastic. You are drunk, aren't you. Go to bed.
From: John Stafford on 1 Jan 2010 21:22 In article <7430abac-6232-444e-bdbf-990bf47805cf(a)j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldoraz(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 2, 12:41�pm, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > In article > > <f0d14326-ed6b-4bc4-ad89-98d9ff958...(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, > > �Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 2, 4:36 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > > > > > Again, inductive reasoning does not lead to proof: a well formed > > > > inductive argument only demonstrates a likelihood. > > > > > No one doubts that scientists make good cases for their conclusions. > > > > That is not true. > > You are supposed to read my brief and concise remarks as meaning that > no one doubts that scientists often make compelling cases. If you would write more concisely there would be fewer arguments. Work on that. > You > autistic, over literal minded clod! You call for conciseness but > refuse to appreciate it when it is delivered. You humbug! Concise > enough for you? I'm doing a drawing of you backing into the corner insanely shouting obscenities. I may actually make a few bucks from this one. Thanks for the inspiration. > [... snip more of Patricia Aldoraz resorting to expressing herself from her reptilian brain stem...]
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 1 Jan 2010 21:24 On Jan 2, 1:18 pm, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > I understand the problem perfectly. And the evidence for this is?
From: John Stafford on 1 Jan 2010 21:24
In article <a1065753-af31-4ceb-b0ee-7ff1900b644a(a)c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldoraz(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 2, 12:35�pm, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > In article > > <2248f623-b121-43e8-8dab-2d0577a69...(a)u41g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, > > �Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 2, 4:53�am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > What is uncommon about it in relation to the problem of induction in > > > philosophy? > > > > It demonstrates that if you accept the test, then you presume that there > > is a specific final image to choose. > > What is important about this? Brief enough for you? > > > That's the uncertain nature of > > inductive reasoning - you have no reason to presume that the sequential > > pattern will continue, but you make your best estimate based upon the > > evidence. > > > > What is the uncertain nature of what exactly? Brief enough for you? It clearly demonstrates an important nature of inductive reasoning. |