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 20:35 On Jan 4, 11:44 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > In article > <de63a174-9b4b-470a-b940-0f7e5ee18...(a)f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, > Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jan 4, 9:17 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > > > > > You are a waste of ASCII characters. You do not know anything > > > > > about science and how work is done. > > > > 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 20:36 On Jan 4, 11:49 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > In article > <5308bbca-8756-4ead-8359-d2c13a577...(a)a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, > Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jan 4, 9:16 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > > > Yah, sure someone like Stafford and a thousand brilliant scholars all > > > around the world. Do you think you are some kind of messiah, FaSoLa? > > > Consider the odds. > > > There are not a thousand brilliant scholars who understand the terms > > of the problem of induction and its modern variants who you could > > cite. And you sure don't show the slightest familiarity with the > > problem. If you did, you would have described it by now. >
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 3 Jan 2010 20:38 On Jan 4, 11:55 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > And you sure don't show the slightest familiarity with the > > problem. If you did, you would have described it by now. > > I have, Where have you described the problem of induction?
From: John Stafford on 3 Jan 2010 20:38 In article <8fbe0564-e3c0-40c8-923b-232379fbea08(a)j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldoraz(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 4, 11:44�am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > In article > > <de63a174-9b4b-470a-b940-0f7e5ee18...(a)f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, > > �Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 4, 9:17�am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > > > > > > > You are a waste of ASCII characters. �You do not know anything > > > > > > about science and how work is done. > > > > > > 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? > > You cannot even keep your attributes in order. Pathetic. Sober up.
From: Marshall on 3 Jan 2010 20:39
On Jan 3, 1:12 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > 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. False pregnancy can occur in ewes, but it's more common in bitches. It of course is not a kind of pregnancy. Since that was why I mentioned it, making that point at me just shows how poorly you're following the conversation. The term is an illustration of an adjective working to some effect other than the simplistic one that you keep asserting is the only one possible. Oh, and do you get a nickle every time you use the word "Kantian" or something? You sound like a twelve year old who just learned a big shiny new word. The only other word you use as monotonously is "ewe." I note you are posting from New Zealand; is your fascination for ewes professional or romantic? > > 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? Absolutely certain? No, of course not. Marshall |