Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: Michael Gordge on 7 Jan 2010 05:23 On Jan 7, 2:48 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Actually, I'm a physicist, but physicists have to learn to make sense > of what mathematicians are saying. :>) And you can not find an "axiomatic certainty" in physics because? Here let me answer, because its a contradiction in terms and there are no contradiction in reality, therefore you can not and wil not find the contradiction "axiomatic certainty" BTW, You still haven't answered, are you absolutely uncertain that you can never be absolutely certain? (Note that question is based upon your claim that you can not be absolutely certain) (Note also you haven't explained how preceeding certainty with the adjective "absolutely" changes anything about certainty) MG
From: Errol on 7 Jan 2010 07:48 On Jan 7, 10:17 am, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> 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" > Just because the words are in a different order doesn't mean they mean totally different things Mikey. Hoo boy! talk about blinkered!
From: jmfbahciv on 7 Jan 2010 10:43 J. Clarke wrote: > jmfbahciv wrote: <snip> > > 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. > Popper is on my list. I'm not so sure about Hume since I've noticed that it's the name used in their name-dropping to cause me to worship the ground they trod on. I'm still trying to understand politics; it doesn't help that I've been allergic to the subject all my life :-). These people don't name-drop Popper as often. Do you have any idea why this happens? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 7 Jan 2010 10:45 M Purcell wrote: > On Jan 6, 5:24 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: >> M Purcell wrote: >>> On Jan 5, 5:54 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: >>>> M Purcell wrote: >>>>> On Jan 4, 6:27 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: >>>>>> M Purcell wrote: >>>>>>> On Jan 3, 6:48 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: >>>>>>>> John Stafford wrote: >>>>>>>> <snip --piggy-backing another post> >>>>>>>> I got to the library and looked up that induction-reasoning >>>>>>>> web site. I had planned to watch myself think while doing >>>>>>>> the test. Didn't happen. I popped out the answer to each >>>>>>>> without thinking. >>>>>>> You believe thinking is a physical activity unnecessary for answering >>>>>>> questions? >>>>>> Are you really trying to be ignorant? >>>>> Are you really trying to watch yourself think without success? >>>> I am successful. I was paid very well to do this kind of thing. >>> Paid by whom to do what kind of thing? >> the company who hired me and to be able to watch how people >> do things which included how they did their thinking when >> solving their problems. Often, we hadn't shipped yet, so >> I used myself as the guinea pig in anticipation of how >> our customers would act and think. > > And you assumed everybody thinks like you do? Of course not. I simply am very good at being able to figure out how other people think. > >>>>>>>> If you call the process for finding those solutions >>>>>>>> inductive reasoning, then I have to conclude that >>>>>>>> inductive reasoning is in the hardware. I would >>>>>>>> not use the word reasoning at all for that kind >>>>>>>> of brain processing. >>>>>>> The generalization of this test to all inductive reasoning is >>>>>>> inductive reasoning. Apparently you are still not thinking. >>>>>> There is a huge difference between conscious thinking and >>>>>> automated thinking. One plans your survival the other >>>>>> ensures you survive to carry those plans. >>>>> A difference between survival and survival? >>>> In business, it's called short-term and long-term. You >>>> appear to be limited to short-term only. >>> How did you arrive at this conclusion? >> Your inability to think long term is clear from the nonsense >> you type. > > What is your reasoning to support this conclusion? The way you don't understand what is written in this thread. You don't appear to have any critical analysis techniques. Your habit of ignoring reality is part of it; it's called cognitive dissonance. This happens when a person has an inability to think in long-term scenarios. /BAH /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 7 Jan 2010 10:47
PD wrote: > 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. :>) And if you can't, you call the theorists, don't you? ROTFL. /BAH |