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: jmfbahciv on 4 Jan 2010 09:31 Marshall wrote: > 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. > > you are wrong. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 4 Jan 2010 09:32 John Stafford wrote: > 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. Not true. Or is this technique a rarity? I've always thought everyone can do that. >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. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 4 Jan 2010 09:35 Michael Gordge wrote: > On Jan 3, 11:28 pm, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > >> I just posted an example. > > Try an example that deals with reality, sensory reality, you know, > mind independent, reality is after all the only thing that matters in > gaining knowledge. > ARe you kidding? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 4 Jan 2010 09:43 Patricia Aldoraz wrote: > 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. Stating a fact is an 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? Your answers in these posts show, not only an ignorance of subject matter, but also no curiosity nor desire to learn. > 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? I'm trying to learn the relevance. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 4 Jan 2010 09:46
Patricia Aldoraz wrote: > 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 That certainly is a leap of conclusion with no data. > 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. > I'm trying to figure out what he's talking about. So far, he's the only one among all the noise who has tried to have a discussion. I have no idea if he's a nut nor do I know if he knows what he is talking about...yet. So far, it's been fun having a discussion with him. But not you since you've decided to be a snot instead of seriously trying to learn. /BAH /BAH |