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 5 Jan 2010 08:56 PD wrote: > On Jan 3, 8:26 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: >> PD wrote: >>> On Jan 1, 3:36 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: >>>> On Jan 2, 3:47 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> No, this is NOT the context. The context was that not being able to >>>>> breathe water is not an AXIOMATIC statement. >>>> You wanted an example of something that was certain, >>> No. Please read what I specifically asked for. I asked for something >>> that was AXIOMATICALLY certain. >>> You ignored the adjective and provided something that was certain for >>> a wholly different reason. >>> The fact that you do not understand the meaning of axiomatic doesn't >>> alter what I asked for. >> An axiomatically certain example is: "All parallel lines intersect >> at infinity.". > > Yes, that's a good one for math. How about for physics? Beats the shitouta me :-). Seeing what they gave for examples is the reason I started to follow the thread. How about what goes up, must come down? /BAH /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 5 Jan 2010 08:58 John Stafford wrote: > In article <hhst3g913hv(a)news3.newsguy.com>, 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? >> >>>> 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. > > That's rather clever! I've been studying it for decades. The ASCII just seemed to flow out of my fingers yesterday. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 5 Jan 2010 09:01 John Stafford wrote: > In article > <3696af78-81d5-4fc7-b1dd-765320b57ebb(a)34g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>, > M Purcell <sacscale1(a)aol.com> 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? >> >>>>> 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? > > My take is that we have a great deal of automatic thinking of the type > that helps keep us alive long enough to think _better_. > > That thing over there ate my children. > That thing over there killed my cave mate. > That thing over there can hurt me, too > > WHEW! It went away. Now how can I keep from being hurt. (think, think) - > distance, make distance; RUN AWAY. No. That's what my mate did. (think, > think). an example of automated survival is the reaction to stomp on the brakes without thinking "consciously" about it. Another is automatic typing you learn. I no longer think of each letter of a word but the word; then my fingers take over. That's not hardwired in; it's a learned action. Discovering the ones which are hardwired vs. learned is very interesting. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 5 Jan 2010 09:05 dorayme wrote: > In article <hhst3g913hv(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 I did try to guess. I'm pretty good at it, too. My estimates of what Purcell means have a probability of 45-50% being correct at this point. >instead of just launching into these questionably relevant replies? > > 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...) You aren't even wrong. > > Here is an intelligent interpretation, it is may be too sensible for you > both, but I am always as daring as I am obnoxious: > > 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." > > This interpretation, or even as a question on its own terms, is > something that seems to escape almost all of you. > It's not escaping me. The problem is identifying which conclusions were based on induction. I'm beginning to think that a rule of thumb is: if induction is used to create this conclusion, then more work has to be done to check it. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 5 Jan 2010 09:06
dorayme wrote: > In article <hhst96013hv(a)news3.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> > wrote: > >> John Stafford wrote: > >>> I've a lot of examples of how we construct our reality through >>> induction. Perhaps in some other place without *Aldoraz I'll post some >>> examples. >>> > >> I had quite a number of brothers and sisters and two parents; I learned >> early on how to ignore the noise. >> > > How come you ignore everything of value? I haven't seen much yet. >Your brothers have scarred you > so badly that you don't even understand the expression throwing the baby > out with the bath water. It has turned you into a completely content > free zone. Your posts are good evidence of your ignorance. Fancy > stepping into Stafford's deep cave and playing with his silly shadows! > See the post I just wrote you. /BAH |