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: Patricia Aldoraz on 2 Jan 2010 20:08 On Jan 3, 11:29 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > In article > <f78e048c-6e96-4a80-bc56-a15b5292b...(a)a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, > Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 3, 12:42 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > > > Patricia Aldoraz wrote: > > > > On Jan 2, 1:08 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > > > >> 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. > > > > > You are a corny simple-minded little jerk > > > > And no humor on top of everything else. > > > Hang on! I thought you said you were not going top bother with me any > > more? > > > Anyway, never mind, I am used to you usenet guys acting like > > hypocrites. > > > But on now to a more serious matter: humour! To say you are corny, you > > little ignorant jerk, is to criticise your sense of humour. It is to > > complain about its crudeness. That is what corny means, you little > > jerk. It is not evidence of a lack of humour. Not only your humour is > > wanting but your logic. Apply the Scientific Method to investigate > > your logical skills. > > Bluster, bluster. Raging insane nonsense. Aldoraz is once again backing > into a corner spewing insults rather than contributing to the subject. > Pity. But of course, the person she is replying to is contributing! You are quite a funny little scrambled egg! Your description, like all your recent capital letter shouting indicates a jumbled mind that is bent on meanness rather than logic. You see, the difference between you and me is that between the lines of the most foul-mouthed personal insults are actual real points in my case. Plus i do dirty better than you - is that what is bothering you, you little pipsqueak? In your case, it is almost always *just* the insults or some weak motherhood statement.
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 2 Jan 2010 20:10 On Jan 3, 11:34 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > In article > <243fe1c0-6252-4582-a1a1-8d0d391a8...(a)h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, > Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jan 3, 12:51 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > > > > Well, now I'm considering that I don't know when I'm using > > > inductive reasoning when I'm thinking about a problem. > > > Neither does Stafford. He just waves his hand to websites and to > > Scientific Method. You are so gullible! > > > Consider seeking professional help. After you. Tell me how you go. If it is costly etc....
From: David Bernier on 2 Jan 2010 20:22 Patricia Aldoraz wrote: > On Jan 3, 2:27 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: >> In article >> <247354ca-0913-4639-a138-d2db6bcb8...(a)e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, >> Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Your contributions have been obscure shitty little statements like >>> "Deduction depends on induction" >> I never wrote that. >> > I never said you did. > >>> "induction is well known to be used to gain knowledge". >> I never wrote that. >> > > I never said you did > >>> This sort of limp nonsense. >> >> By definition, induction does not pretend to guarantee a truth. >> > > There is no definition of induction, certainly not one you have ever > outlined. So who would know. You are talking through your hat as > usual. At least dorayme and I have laid out one possible form. > >>> It is not just that they >>> are not deductive, it is that they do not seem to have any *reasoning >>> power*, there seems not even a *weak* force between the premises and >>> the conclusion. >> If there were no deductive properties and also not a weakness in the >> premises, there would be no probability possible, so the argument would >> not even be induction. It would be nonsense. You see, a probability of >> zero is still a probability, a statement of falsehood. >> > > This is a completely obscure followup to the paragraph you are > quoting. The task is to identify a form of reasoning that is not > deductive but which exhibits reasoning force, that means lifting the > probability to the conclusion to over 50% > >>> "Reasoning power? I refer to the power that avoids The Gambler's >>> Fallacy. You see, no matter how many times a penny comes up tails, it >>> does not follow in any way at all that it will come up tails on the >>> next throw. It is not even probable! Nor is the likelihood of heads >>> any better. There is no reasoning connection between the premise data >>> and the conclusion. >> False. If a coin comes up tails a hundred times in a row, then it is >> proper induction to state that it will come up tails on the 101th toss. >> > > If a coin comes up tails a hundred times in a row, then it is > likely to come up tails on the 101th toss. But this is different to > that there is "a proper induction". The latter is an obscure thing and > you will never, because you are one of Plato's deep-in-the-cave men > always playing with shadows. > >> Why? Because we know from hard-science and statistics that 100 tails in >> a row indicates that the coin is probably not a fair coin and/or the >> toss is not a fair toss. >> > > That is irrelevant to the problem of induction. Sensible curiosity > about induction starts with accepting that these are likelihoods. You, > in your philosophical naivet�, seem to think it is denying that > scientists and mathematicians do a good job. > > >>> "Some people say that there is a more sophisticated idea of induction >>> that does not involve the above simplistic patterns." >> Attribution confusion. I did not write that. > > Never said you did. >>> OK. I am >>> listening. What are these more sophisticated ideas that identify >>> something aptly to be called induction? >> >>> "That scientist X thinks up one pattern and scientist Y thinks up >>> another contrary pattern can be described as both of them inducing >>> different things from the data. But there is nothing in this kind of >>> psychological induction to say the least thing about whether one is >>> good *reasoning* and the other bad. >> Let's sort this out. Induction does not pretend to produce a perfect >> truth, only a probability. >> > This is irrelevant. No one is seeking certainty. That is your > confusion. dorayme and I are actually seeking mere probability, > reasoning power, logical force. > >>> "It is just a psychological trick that trained and gifted scientists >>> get up to! The testing of theories is the main game but that game is >>> a game of deduction." >> Who wrote that? Not me. >> > > Never said you did. (Have you taken your pills today?) This truth was > written, I think by dorayme, with its usual brilliant pithyness. > >> What you are trying to say is quite simple. You are saying that >> induction does not tell us whether a posit is reasonable thinking, and >> my response is that inductive reasoning does not pretend to issue a >> truth, but only a likelihood. >> > > No, I am saying we have yet to identify this beast of induction. And > when we do, I am not wanting or expecting to find more than liklihood. I think there's a part of the mind that produces assumptions, the assumption-maker. Five minutes pass by and already a dozen new assumptions ... David Bernier
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 2 Jan 2010 20:49 On Jan 3, 12:22 pm, David Bernier <david...(a)videotron.ca> wrote: > Patricia Aldoraz wrote: > > No, I am saying we have yet to identify this beast of induction. And > > when we do, I am not wanting or expecting to find more than liklihood. > > I think there's a part of the mind that produces assumptions, > the assumption-maker. Five minutes pass by and already a dozen > new assumptions ... > This is a fair enough way of putting it, yes, I guess. Or we could just simply say that one of the advanced capacities of human is to pattern recognise and not actually commit to whether it is a literal part of the mind.
From: Michael Gordge on 3 Jan 2010 06:31
On Jan 3, 4:48 pm, Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Right. And someone with a false pregnancy............ The diagnosis was made by a Kantian? > and the vice president is the top person in charge. Only when the president is out of the country. Clue - knowledge is contextual. The meaning of neither pregnancy or president was changed by the noun that preceeded them. > Unless you're somehow wrong about how adjectives work. Nope, certainty has a meaning of its own and no preceeding adjective can change it. > You wouldn't be able to tell if we did. Which of course ewe are uncertain about, you'll get giddy, the regress cant stop. MG |