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: Michael Gordge on 4 Jan 2010 16:37 On Dec 31 2009, 3:55 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Well, for one thing, "axiom" means something very specific. It is a > statement that is *presumed* to be true without proof or evidence, > upon which derivations of other statements can be made. Oh soooo "axiomatic certainty" is a contradiction in terms because to be certain requires the non-contradictory identification and integration of sensory evidence. MG
From: Michael Gordge on 4 Jan 2010 16:43 On Jan 4, 11:35 pm, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > 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? Your example had nothing to do with reality, do you have another example? MG
From: Michael Gordge on 4 Jan 2010 16:45 On Jan 5, 6:22 am, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > Nothing means > anything. Shows how desperate ewe are when ewe have to lie. MG
From: M Purcell on 4 Jan 2010 17:12 On Jan 4, 1:01 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > In article <hhst3g91...(a)news3.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> > wrote: > > > M Purcell wrote: > > > The generalization of this test to all inductive reasoning is > > > inductive reasoning. Apparently you are still not thinking. > > > There is a huge difference between conscious thinking and > > automated thinking. One plans your survival the other > > ensures you survive to carry those plans. > > Your answer seems irrelevant to what Purcell is saying. True, it is not > clear what Purcell is trying to say! But why not make a constructive > guess instead of just launching into these questionably relevant replies? Or you could just ask. > Let me guess why you don't do this: you have as little clue about doing > philosophy as he does! You are Mr. Science-Man and worship at some > imagined Scientific-Method God which you think is some sort of secret > knowledge that only you and a few others know about - (in fact, the > secret has been out for hundreds of years...) Scientific knowledge is available to anyone yet you are ignorant. > Here is an intelligent interpretation, it is may be too sensible for you > both, but I am always as daring as I am obnoxious: Ah, a bit of honesty. > Purcell (as touched by dorayme's magic wand): "The problem of induction > is to give good reasons why inductive reasoning is rationally to be > relied on. It is no use *just* identifying what induction is and > pointing out that it has proved wildly successful in ordinary human life > and science in the past. There is the original problem popping up: why > is there reason to suppose it will be *a method* that is to be relied on > in the future." Precisly because it has proved wildly successful and there is no reason to suppose this will change despite your equivocation of the gambler's fallacy with non-random events. > This interpretation, or even as a question on its own terms, is > something that seems to escape almost all of you. No, it is ignored by most of us.
From: dorayme on 4 Jan 2010 17:31
In article <hhsu7812h0k(a)news5.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > 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. > It explains your naive enthusiastic words in regard to it. Have you got a better theory? > > 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. > You are either a lying little turdbag or you simply have not read the thread properly. Who said this: "In the context of a discussion on induction, it is a reasonable thing to ask what a piece of inductive reasoning looks like. What is it about it that specifically makes it appropriate to call it "inductive"? This argument: This A is B, This A is B, ..... ----------------- All As are Bs or even This A is B, This A is B, ..... --------------------- Probably As are Bs is, at least, some sort of recognizable pattern of an argument that can be called *inductive* to contrast it with a deductive argument like: This A is a B This A is a B --------- Some As are Bs "The idea here is that people think there are perfectly good arguments like the above that are not deductive and so let's call them inductive! "But they are not *good* arguments at all, they never are, no matter how many cases are piled up in the premises. 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. "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. "Some people say that there is a more sophisticated idea of induction that does not involve the above simplistic patterns. OK. I am listening. What are these more sophisticated ideas that identify something aptly to be called induction? It is no use merely pointing to the various things scientists do because they do too many things! The inductive bit gets lost in the haze! "Some people have thought to say that scientists *induce* things by thinking up patterns that the data in the premises of so called inductive arguments suggest to their minds. But the trouble with this is that this does not make for any actual argument. Patterns are sometimes ten a penny. Any finite set of data points, any number of so called inductive premises likely fit an infinite number of possible patterns. It is often a remarkable achievement for humans to even think of one! But that act of thinking up a pattern, a possible theory, is not any kind of persuasive *argument* in itself. That may well be called part of a man's efforts to think through a scientific problem, it might even loosely called reasoning. But that bit in itself is not any persuasive forceful reasoning. "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. "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." That, to me, looks like someone trying to explain things and set up the terms of a discussion, someone who is rolling up sleeves and having a go. What does it look like to you, like some idiot trolling? If it does, you are not that much different to that crazed Gordge. > 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. > You are inexperienced and have no sense of judgement. Stafford is *not* a nut. It is just that he is *superficial* in *matters of philosophy*, he simply has never understood that there is something *below the surface*. > But not you since you've decided to be a snot instead > of seriously trying to learn. > You are an idiot to say this and further exposes you. You are merely parroting others here. Get a grip on yourself. -- dorayme |