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 4 Jan 2010 17:59 On Jan 5, 9:12 am, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Jan 4, 1:01 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > Scientific knowledge is available to anyone yet you are ignorant. > What knowledge is relevant to the problem of induction and why does it need to be particularly scientific? That is the first question which you and other people like yourself never bother to explain. The second is what evidence do you have that the person you are accusing of ignorance is ignorant? The second is connected to the first because there is no point in someone showing off scientific knowledge if it is not relevant to some context. You don't understand this do you? > > 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. > You have yet to demonstrate any. Start by answering the questions I asked above and in detail. > > 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. > I touch you with a good magic wand and then Stafford or some bloody idiot angel touches you with his or hers! You are not following the argument. You are not understanding what the problem of induction is. If you did, you would not say what you have just said. You are using induction, as it were, to justify induction. Your mind is so wooden and block headed that you cannot even break out of it to see this simple thing. You are quite an idiot really. You have no idea what the point of the example of the Gambler's Fallacy is, you have no analysis of the equivocation you claim, not one that anyone has properly made out. > > 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. the problem of induction is ignored by most of you, you see it as some excuse to play with shadows in Stafford's cave and to say the most superficial things. Why not go to the basketweaving class right now? It is over there: ------>
From: Michael Gordge on 5 Jan 2010 01:59 On Jan 5, 1:49 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Yes, that's a good one for math. How about for physics? "Axiomatic certainty" is a contradiction in terms by your own defintion of axiomatic, its not possible to be certain of anything without evidence and yet you say axiomatic requires no evidence, how about you deal with that? MG
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 5 Jan 2010 02:37 On Jan 5, 5:59 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > its not possible to be certain of anything > without evidence > It happens on a daily basis, you need to get out more. But, then, everyone (but you) knows that. <g/2>
From: Michael Gordge on 5 Jan 2010 02:47 On Jan 5, 4:37 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 5, 5:59 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > > > its not possible to be certain of anything > > without evidence > > It happens on a daily basis, So what did ewe silly sheeple get up to in church on Sunday Pat? I know basket weaving wasn't it? She wasn't a virgin ewe know that dont ewe? MG
From: jmfbahciv on 5 Jan 2010 08:54
M Purcell wrote: > On Jan 4, 6:27 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: >> M Purcell 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. >>> You believe thinking is a physical activity unnecessary for answering >>> questions? >> Are you really trying to be ignorant? > > Are you really trying to watch yourself think without success? I am successful. I was paid very well to do this kind of thing. > >>>> 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. >>> 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. > > A difference between survival and survival? In business, it's called short-term and long-term. You appear to be limited to short-term only. /BAH |