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 09:11 Michael Gordge wrote: > 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? > Not for you; it would be a waste of your time. /BAH
From: Zinnic on 5 Jan 2010 09:04 On Jan 5, 8:01 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > John Stafford wrote: > > In article > > <3696af78-81d5-4fc7-b1dd-765320b57...(a)34g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>, > > M Purcell <sacsca...(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 Survival is a sine qua non. Bicycling is learned. Round, rather than triangular wheels, is hardwired!
From: jmfbahciv on 5 Jan 2010 09:17 dorayme wrote: > 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 They don't think up patterns; they think of hypotheses which may cause those patterns. >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. Resolving the two is the job of the Scientific Method. That's why the Scientific Method was created. > > "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. > and you were just starting to have a decent discussion. Dammit. <snip> /BAH
From: M Purcell on 5 Jan 2010 09:07 On Jan 5, 5:54 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > 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. Paid by whom to do what 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. How did you arrive at this conclusion?
From: jmfbahciv on 5 Jan 2010 09:40
John Stafford wrote: > In article <hhstav113hv(a)news3.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> > wrote: > >> 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. > > What is introspection in this conversation? Is it thinking (reasoning), > or pure thinking without the senses other than the sense of > consciousness? It is neither. This action is an attempt to figure out the steps the brain had to take in order to complete an action or achieve a goal. I'm not saying that it was easy to do. I don't call "watching myself think" introspection. It was an attempt to be objective about the processes the brain had to do in order to achieve a particular, well-specified goal. > > Reasoning includes premises, concepts, and IMHO that is not pure > introspection. Based on your use of the word "introspection", that's true. But I don't think I was talking about your idea of introspection. Do you know anything about expert systems in the AI field? [emoticon shudders at having to utter the A word] /BAH |