Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: PD on 6 Jan 2010 10:47 On Jan 5, 4:31 pm, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > 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. Your examples are cases of INFERRED statements. They are indeed postulates, but they are far from certain. As you say, they are only provisionally accepted as long as their consequents are consistent with experimental observation. As another example, Einstein firmly believed in the principle of locality, which is why he had such great difficulty with quantum mechanics. Jon Bell codified that belief into a firm prediction as a means to test it, and Alain Aspect did the experimental test which showed that Einstein's beloved postulate, the principle of locality, was simply wrong. > > > 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: M Purcell on 6 Jan 2010 11:42 On Jan 6, 7:47 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 5, 4:31 pm, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > 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. > > Your examples are cases of INFERRED statements. They are indeed > postulates, but they are far from certain. As you say, they are only > provisionally accepted as long as their consequents are consistent > with experimental observation. Indeed, they are inferred from observations with the assumption our observations may not be valid. But this requirement of repeated verification seems to indicate inductive reasoning. > As another example, Einstein firmly believed in the principle of > locality, which is why he had such great difficulty with quantum > mechanics. Jon Bell codified that belief into a firm prediction as a > means to test it, and Alain Aspect did the experimental test which > showed that Einstein's beloved postulate, the principle of locality, > was simply wrong. Which goes to show that nobody is perfect and quantum mechanical concepts such as wave-particle duality are very unintuitive
From: M Purcell on 6 Jan 2010 12:02 On Jan 6, 7:47 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 5, 4:31 pm, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > 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. > > Your examples are cases of INFERRED statements. They are indeed > postulates, but they are far from certain. As you say, they are only > provisionally accepted as long as their consequents are consistent > with experimental observation. Indeed, they are inferred by observation with the assumption our observation may not be valid. But this requirement of reverification seems to indicate inductive reasoning. > As another example, Einstein firmly believed in the principle of > locality, which is why he had such great difficulty with quantum > mechanics. Jon Bell codified that belief into a firm prediction as a > means to test it, and Alain Aspect did the experimental test which > showed that Einstein's beloved postulate, the principle of locality, > was simply wrong. Which goes to show that nobody is perfect and quantum mechanical concepts such as wave-particle duality are not intuitve.
From: PD on 6 Jan 2010 14:48 On Jan 6, 10:42 am, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Jan 6, 7:47 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jan 5, 4:31 pm, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > 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. > > > Your examples are cases of INFERRED statements. They are indeed > > postulates, but they are far from certain. As you say, they are only > > provisionally accepted as long as their consequents are consistent > > with experimental observation. > > Indeed, they are inferred from observations with the assumption our > observations may not be valid. Well, they are general rules that are inferred from a known set of examples which may not be complete. The best example here is the principle of relativity, which was one of Einstein's postulates. It was known to hold for Newtonian mechanics in an obvious way, but it was not obviously true for the laws of electrodynamics. Einstein asked the question, "But what if the principle of relativity IS true for ALL laws of physics? What would be the implications of that?" Thus the principle of relativity was an inferred general rule, which led to the deduction of testable consequences, which in fact turned out to match measurement, lending credence to the inferred postulate. > But this requirement of repeated > verification seems to indicate inductive reasoning. > > > As another example, Einstein firmly believed in the principle of > > locality, which is why he had such great difficulty with quantum > > mechanics. Jon Bell codified that belief into a firm prediction as a > > means to test it, and Alain Aspect did the experimental test which > > showed that Einstein's beloved postulate, the principle of locality, > > was simply wrong. > > Which goes to show that nobody is perfect and quantum mechanical > concepts such as wave-particle duality are very unintuitive. Well, I wouldn't say it quite that way. Quantum mechanics isn't all that unintuitive (at least to those who have practice with it). But Einstein just had a very strong hunch that the principle of locality was a good rule of nature --- he arrived at that conclusion by some process of induction. So Einstein could put his finger on where the conflict was between his inductions and quantum mechanics. It just turned out in this case that Einstein's induction was wrong.
From: M Purcell on 6 Jan 2010 16:41
On Jan 6, 11:48 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 6, 10:42 am, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 6, 7:47 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 5, 4:31 pm, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > Your examples are cases of INFERRED statements. They are indeed > > > postulates, but they are far from certain. As you say, they are only > > > provisionally accepted as long as their consequents are consistent > > > with experimental observation. > > > Indeed, they are inferred from observations with the assumption our > > observations may not be valid. > > Well, they are general rules that are inferred from a known set of > examples which may not be complete. > The best example here is the principle of relativity, which was one of > Einstein's postulates. It was known to hold for Newtonian mechanics in > an obvious way, but it was not obviously true for the laws of > electrodynamics. Einstein asked the question, "But what if the > principle of relativity IS true for ALL laws of physics? What would be > the implications of that?" Thus the principle of relativity was an > inferred general rule, which led to the deduction of testable > consequences, which in fact turned out to match measurement, lending > credence to the inferred postulate. Yes, testable conclusions can be deduced from observations. > > But this requirement of repeated > > verification seems to indicate inductive reasoning. > > > > As another example, Einstein firmly believed in the principle of > > > locality, which is why he had such great difficulty with quantum > > > mechanics. Jon Bell codified that belief into a firm prediction as a > > > means to test it, and Alain Aspect did the experimental test which > > > showed that Einstein's beloved postulate, the principle of locality, > > > was simply wrong. > > > Which goes to show that nobody is perfect and quantum mechanical > > concepts such as wave-particle duality are very unintuitive. > > Well, I wouldn't say it quite that way. Quantum mechanics isn't all > that unintuitive (at least to those who have practice with it). But > Einstein just had a very strong hunch that the principle of locality > was a good rule of nature --- he arrived at that conclusion by some > process of induction. So Einstein could put his finger on where the > conflict was between his inductions and quantum mechanics. It just > turned out in this case that Einstein's induction was wrong. Wave-particle duality is not commonly experienced. |