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 3 Jan 2010 15:55 On Jan 4, 2:48 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > On Jan 2, 6:27 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On Jan 3, 12:33 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > > > > On Jan 2, 12:17 am, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > At least Zinnic was starting to ask a few pertinent questions. You are > > > > such a sad lot. > > > > Hey! No fair teach. Please please take that back and tell me that I, > > > ZINNIC, am still at the bottom of your class. > > > You have not done enough bad things lately. You are trying to gain an > > unfair advantage over that prick Stafford and Dutch! You fail. They > > are beating you to the bottom. > > So I went out and did enough bad to successfully bottom me out. > Thanx.! Please leave me alone Zinnic, you are complete idiot who knows absolutely nothing about philosophy and have no curiosity to power the least improvement...
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 3 Jan 2010 16:03 On Jan 4, 3:28 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > 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. > This is complete garbage, you have no idea of the scale of the problem, you are playing some private version of Disneyland Philosophy. > I've a lot of examples of how we construct our reality through > induction. And, of course, piling up pattern recognition examples, all by its magic self, will throw all the light that is needed to understand the hard part of the problem of induction. Carry on, you superficial fool. There will be no end of characters like Zinnic and that awful scientism-prone individual called jmfbahciv who will flock to chatter aimlessly along the same lines. You are a foolish man Stafford.
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 3 Jan 2010 16:07 On Jan 4, 5:00 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > 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, I very much doubt it. What would be the control to check on whether you would be getting this right or not? In fact, of course, you have little idea what you are talking about. Do you actually enjoy waffling on for no particular analytic reason? You silly lightweight sausage.
From: Michael Gordge on 3 Jan 2010 16:12 On Jan 4, 2:00 am, Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > A false pregnancy does not end with the delivery > of a baby,..... Whoops silly ewe, no baby because there was no pregnancy, check your premises, not pregnant - there was nothing false - except perhaps, as I said, the diagnosis was made by a Kantian and you have fallen for it. > I have the kind of certainty............ You still havent explained what you mean by certainty, so that doesn't make sense. Can you be certain of anything? MG
From: Michael Gordge on 3 Jan 2010 16:16
On Jan 4, 1:45 am, Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > You misspell "can't"............ Shrug strawman, the subject is, your refusal to explain what you mean by certainty and to explain how it changes by being preceeded by the adjective aximomatic, now stay on subject there's a good girl. MG |