Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: dorayme on 6 Jan 2010 10:13 In article <hi22c66810(a)news7.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > dorayme wrote: > > In article <hhvg6d01jb8(a)news7.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> > > wrote: > > > >>> 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. > > > > The first problem is to understand what is meant by induction. Take a > > look at all the uses of this word and now take a look at a typical > > scientific problem that is absolutely raging at the moment about the > > climate, scientists are at loggerheads. > > What you're reading and seeing about this topic has nothing to do > with science but politics. Thus, right away, your example is > a very bad one. > What is your evidence for this? How do you know that what is often presumed to be the key to the problem of induction, some alleged Scientific Method, is not a chimera and that this fact is a reason for the great difficulties in any big and complex scientific controversy. There is no clear enough Scientific Method to settle big and complex problems, the politics of it is not some mere separate matter. Relations between scientists, the whole practice of science cannot be easily separated from all politics. Sure it can be usefully separated from many of the barrows that various scientifically ignorant people are motivated to push. > >Now try to identify the > > *Scientific Method* and also, most importantly, *induction* in this > > particular context. I think you might find this a sobering exercise if > > you really carried it out in earnest. I have and fail to see a clear and > > useful Scientific Method. I also fail to see what are usefully to be > > called inductions that can be see to solve the problem of induction > > > Since the Scientific Method is not used w.r.t. this topic, your > discussion is an attempt at smoke and mirrors. Did you really > believe that this sleight of ASCII English would work? > You saying this simply shows your ignorance. Personal invective, when not provoked by personal comments, are almost always a sign of this. Completely the opposite is the case of what you are saying (when stripped of your mean spirited attempt at clever insult). Scientific Method is quite central to this topic because in the history of this topic, many philosophers have seen in the idea of a Scientific Method a path to a solution to the problem of induction. -- dorayme
From: dorayme on 6 Jan 2010 10:26 In article <hi252002mrj(a)news5.newsguy.com>, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: > jmfbahciv wrote: > > 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 > > FWIW, I think that everyone interested in this topic might want to read some > Hume and some Popper--they both had goes at the question of the validity and > utility of inductive reasoning, and Popper I understand discusses it > specifically in the context of the scentific method. I don't know their > work beyond that so can't suggest any readings--they're on my list but > there's a lot in front of them. Brilliant, a self-confessed ignorant man comes forth to contribute with a reading list which he has not read. Well done, it is in the fine tradition of the other usenet guys here who do lots of quoting and telling people to go read stuff and implying great knowledge but never demonstrating any in personal invective free writing here and now. Oh, that would be just about too much for the people I am talking to, to actually read and understand the history of the problem and the literature. If they did, they might actually be able to discuss the topic more intelligently. But they constantly show that they are more interested in personal abuse and they brush aside any attempt to take things slowly and go through the ramifications of the problem. They are here to parade their abject ignorance and desire to beat people up. Look at the traffic if you don't believe me. Look at who starts insulting whom. -- dorayme
From: PD on 6 Jan 2010 10:44 On Jan 5, 4:23 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > > 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, Who says? You? Are you certain of that? What if others disagree with you?
From: PD on 6 Jan 2010 10:43 On Jan 5, 3:30 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. > > 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 Ah, so I see the problem. You *assert* that anything that is certain must be derived from sensory evidence. And that therefore "axiomatic certainty" is, by virtue of your assertion, a contradiction in terms. OK, let's take an example. Let's use Euclid's Fifth Postulate. Is that certain or not? PD
From: PD on 6 Jan 2010 10:48
On Jan 5, 4:38 pm, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.net> wrote: > In article > <f340ad1d-1e27-42e5-b51b-82781c72d...(a)z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, > Michael Gordge <mikegor...(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. Actually, I'm a physicist, but physicists have to learn to make sense of what mathematicians are saying. :>) |