Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: PD on 6 Jan 2010 17:56 On Jan 6, 3:41 pm, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Jan 6, 11:48 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. Maybe you don't notice the photosensor on the conveyor belt at the grocery store checkout, which relies on it. :) Intuition can be broader than what is commonly afforded by experience through unaugmented senses. Humans are good at augmenting the senses, and different groups of people have lots of common experience using different tools to augment those senses. Physicists are quite comfortable and intuitively familiar with those phenomena that they observe through their particular choice of augmentation tools. Biologists use others. Geologists use others.
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 7 Jan 2010 00:52 On Jan 6, 9:38 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.net> wrote: > Methinks PD is a mathematician in which axiomatic certainty can occur. Axioms do not reside in mathematicians, they reside in systems.
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 7 Jan 2010 01:08 On Jan 7, 8:41 am, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > ... testable conclusions can be deduced from observations. > Don't give an example, it might make it too clear or else show it to be quite confused.
From: Michael Gordge on 7 Jan 2010 03:17 On Jan 7, 2:43 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Ah, so I see the problem. You *assert* that anything that is certain > must be derived from sensory evidence. Nope, you are a liar, I said, "certainty (as against an axiom) required the non-contradictory identification and integration of evidence, of sensory evidence" > And that therefore "axiomatic > certainty" is, by virtue of your assertion, a contradiction in terms. Nope by YOUR definition of axiom being something accepted without any evidence. > OK, let's take an example. Let's use Euclid's Fifth Postulate. Is that > certain or not? What is the sensory evidence? Shrug, if its not matter then it doesn't matter. MG
From: Michael Gordge on 7 Jan 2010 03:21
On Jan 7, 9:56 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Maybe you don't.......... You didn't say what ewe got up to in church the other day, you know, its the place where certainties are claimed in the absense of any evidence, which you claimed happens all the time? After all, its only Kantians, church goers, liars and socialists who would claim a certainty in the absense of any evidence, sensory evidence. MG |