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 17:23 On Jan 6, 12:19 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > That's the DEFINITION of axiomatic, yes. I thought you said you > understood what an axiom is. Now you say it is a contradiction in > terms. You are being blantantly dishonest, I said the silly slogan "axiomatic certainty" is a contradiction in terms, its an oxymoron. Again you have stated or agree that axiom is something accepted without evidence, whereas certainty requires the non-contradictory identification and integration of evidence, of sensory evidence, you cant have your cake and eat it too. MG
From: M Purcell on 5 Jan 2010 17:31 On Jan 5, 1:30 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > 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. This make so much more sense than just cussing and if you stopped using the Kantian label you would sound almost sane. I believe PD's point was that an axiomatic certainty does not exist in physics. Although increasing entropy and the consistancy of the speed of light come close, they must be verified and reverified by observation. In science, every "certainty" is subject to repeated verification. > 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. In the sense of geometric axioms, there are basic assumptions that can not be deduced by simpler assumptions. Your assumption of the certainty of the information provided by your senses is easily disproven by optical illusions, mockingbirds, deoderant, artifical sweetners, or by peeing on one hand then placing both hands in the same container of water.
From: Michael Gordge on 5 Jan 2010 17:32 On Jan 6, 12:21 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > No. Where did you get the idea that axiomatic certainty requires the > integration of sensory evidence? Why are you being so dishonest? Axiomatic and certainty are two totally seperate and two totally different concepts and no bridge can ever be built between them, no matter how hard the Kantians try. Axiom is accepted without evidence, certainty requires the non-contradicictory identification of evidence, sensory evidence. One with one without evidnce does NOT even place axiom and certainty in the same universe of meanings. MG
From: John Stafford on 5 Jan 2010 17:38 In article <f340ad1d-1e27-42e5-b51b-82781c72d037(a)z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, Michael Gordge <mikegordge(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > On Jan 6, 12:21�am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > No. Where did you get the idea that axiomatic certainty requires the > > integration of sensory evidence? > > Why are you being so dishonest? Methinks PD is a mathematician in which axiomatic certainty can occur.
From: Michael Gordge on 6 Jan 2010 05:58
On Jan 6, 11:53 am, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > The phrase does seem a bit redundent but I think it refers to basic > assumptions from which deductions are made. Its a blatant contradiction, self destructive. > I would agree that a lot of our knowledge is identities or > definitions. "Of what"? > How can a contradiction be made if the only evidence is provided by > the senses? Exactly, and yet that is what the leftist retards do, e.g. their identification of the human being contains numerous contradictions, as does their claimed evidence of the global warming scam. > Different people identify and integrate information > slightly differently however there are human simularities and > agreements. So what are the slight differences that you believe you have identified, say, between the elephant and the ant, that you claim are different to the differences that most other people would identify? MG |