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 5 Jan 2010 16:19 On Jan 5, 11:11 pm, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > Not for you; it would be a waste of your time. Blaming me for your problems? typical behaviour of a losing socialist. MG
From: Michael Gordge on 5 Jan 2010 16:23 On Jan 6, 12:20 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 4, 3:31 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > > > On Jan 5, 1:42 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Well, let's tackle that last comment. > > > I asked for an example of something that *in physics* is regarded as > > > *axiomatically* certain, where "axiomatic"............ > > > based on "..........evidence"............... > > > What meaning does "certainty" have and what meaning does "evidence" > > have in your silly slogans "axiomatic certainty" and "observational > > evidence"? > > > MG > > Please reread what I wrote about focusing on the definition of animal, > after you've proposed zebra as an example of a spotted animal. Not interested in reading your silly invented stories, please try for once to stay on subject and give the meaning of certainty and evidence in the slogans "axiomatic certainty" and "observational evidence". MG
From: Michael Gordge on 5 Jan 2010 16:30 On Jan 6, 12:22 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I don't have one, either. That's why I asked. Clue, - You can not give an example of something that does not exist, axiomatic certainty is an oxymoron, and its as Kantian and therefore stupid as they get, as you and all other Kantians before and around you have shown time and time again by your refusal to give the meaning of certainty as used in the slogan. You refuse to give it simply because you know that to be certain of anything requires the non-contradictory identification and integration of evidence, sensory evidence - and you state that axiomatic doesn't require any evidence. MG
From: Michael Gordge on 5 Jan 2010 16:39 On Dec 31 2009, 8:25 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Well, let's take an example: Euclid's Fifth Postulate, where > "postulate" and "axiom" are taken to be synonymous. Whooops silly you; How can something that does NOT require evidence (which you stated is a requirment / meaning of axiom) and something that DOES require non- contradictory identification of evidence, sensory evidence (which you refuse to state as a meaning for certainty for reasons unknown) be synonymous? check your premises. I cant find your answer to the question "Are you absolutely uncertain or absolutely certain that you can ever be absolutely certain"? And are you absolutely uncertain or absolutely certain of your answer? MG
From: dorayme on 5 Jan 2010 16:47
In article <hhvgsi01jq2(a)news7.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > dorayme wrote: > > "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. > Scientists do think up patterns and they also think up hypotheses, it is not an either or situation. Furthermore the hypotheses they form are based on patterns that they are imagining and need to see the significance of. Seeing a pattern is the precursor to forming a hypothesis so that different ones can be tested. -- dorayme |