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 3 Jan 2010 11:28 In article <hhq9v3027u2(a)news3.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > John Stafford wrote: > > <snip --piggy-backing another post> > > I got to the library and looked up that induction-reasoning > web site. I had planned to watch myself think while doing > the test. Didn't happen. I popped out the answer to each > without thinking. > > If you call the process for finding those solutions > inductive reasoning, then I have to conclude that > inductive reasoning is in the hardware. I would > not use the word reasoning at all for that kind > of brain processing. Of course, that is only one example of inductive reasoning, but it is wise to realize that we construct our reality from senses. In the case of that particular example, the premise is what makes it induction - that the last frame will follow the others in pattern when we cannot know that will be the case. It's the induction rule there. I've a lot of examples of how we construct our reality through induction. Perhaps in some other place without *Aldoraz I'll post some examples. *Aldoraz AKA FaSoLa
From: Marshall on 3 Jan 2010 12:08 On Jan 3, 6:48 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > John Stafford wrote: > > <snip --piggy-backing another post> > > I got to the library and looked up that induction-reasoning > web site. I had planned to watch myself think while doing > the test. Didn't happen. I popped out the answer to each > without thinking. > > If you call the process for finding those solutions > inductive reasoning, then I have to conclude that > inductive reasoning is in the hardware. I would > not use the word reasoning at all for that kind > of brain processing. Using introspection like this as a technique to discover the way the mind works in not a valid technique. Your subjective experience of what goes on inside your head is not a guide to what actually goes on inside your head. Marshall
From: John Stafford on 3 Jan 2010 13:00 In article <1b8885d8-a268-4d2e-858b-dd864196f075(a)j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, Marshall <marshall.spight(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 3, 6:48�am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > > > > I got to the library and looked up that induction-reasoning > > web site. �I had planned to watch myself think while doing > > the test. �Didn't happen. �I popped out the answer to each > > without thinking. > > > > If you call the process for finding those solutions > > inductive reasoning, then I have to conclude that > > inductive reasoning is in the hardware. �I would > > not use the word reasoning at all for that kind > > of brain processing. > > Using introspection like this as a technique to > discover the way the mind works in not a valid > technique. Your subjective experience of what > goes on inside your head is not a guide to what > actually goes on inside your head. So true. Let's take for example how we construct certain things from visual perception. After considerable observation we can describe the rules we use to build a construct, but it tells us little of how the brain makes it so. (I say little because at this time we have learned some of the areas of the brain involved, but what do they say? "The map is not the territory"?) Darn. I wish I had Photoshop at home. I'd draw some examples. Maybe next week from the lab.
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 3 Jan 2010 15:50 On Jan 4, 1:28 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > Patricia Aldoraz wrote: > > On Jan 3, 12:39 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > >> Patricia Aldoraz wrote: > >>> On Jan 2, 1:03 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > >>>> The Scientific Method is not a handwave. I'll ask again. Do > >>>> you know anything about it? > >>> Do you know what it is? How exactly does it relate to the problem of > >>> induction? > >> Since you won't answer the question, > > > You mean like you don't answer mine? > > You are a waste of ASCII characters. You do not know anything > about science and how work is done. > > /BAH Thank you for the insult. Now, what is the slightest bit of evidence, that you possess that I do not know anything about science or how work is done? What is the slightest bit of evidencethat you know what is relevant and what is not relevant to the traditional and ongoing offshoots of the philosophical problem of induction?
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 3 Jan 2010 15:52
On Jan 4, 1:29 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > Patricia Aldoraz 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! > > did you go to that site and do the test? I did. > Of course you did, because you have not seen tests like this before and have no idea what the problem of induction is and so you would think *anything* might be relevant. Thus you will be misled by someone like Stafford who also shows breathtaking ignorance as well. |