Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: dorayme on 7 Jan 2010 14:54 In article <762f63fb-184d-4547-9a88-c13b015e9a1c(a)k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 6, 11:52 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > 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. > > What do you mean by a "system"? You mean like an algebraic system or > in a car engine? Oh, you are actually coming back to do more than abuse me personally! What happened? Did you have a religious experience? The matter is quite trivial and it was a light remark of mine in response to a stupid looking (perhaps grammatically stupid) sentence from Stafford. When philosophers talk about axioms it is generally to indicate statements that have a special status, often ones that generate a system or tree of consequences, the statements themselves not being a consequence of anything else in the system. It just seemed odd to me to think that axioms were somehow in mathematicians themselves. Anyway, I also probably made a mistake here - you see I am only just in training in fathoming the convolutions of the scrambled egg brains I am seeing on this usenet group and long experience of this insulting fool, Stafford makes me jump to conclusions incautiously. I notice he does use the word certainty, and that I suppose does *reside* in mathematicians. But this is way too subtle a mistake for you to have realised before abusing me in your last post. -- dorayme
From: J. Clarke on 7 Jan 2010 15:11 dorayme wrote: > In article <hi4v5i92i43(a)news5.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> > wrote: > >> Patricia Aldoraz wrote: >>> 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. >> >> Oh, good grief. You don't even have high school math in your >> background. >> > > You are becoming quite a specialist at cowardly one line responses to > posts by me and others, is this to hide the great analytical skills > you boasted about recently? Do you ever have really good reasons for > your views? Would you be kind enough to define the words "axiom" and "axiomatic" as you are using them?
From: PD on 7 Jan 2010 15:47 On Jan 7, 1:54 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > Anyway, I also probably made a mistake here - you see I am only just in > training in fathoming the convolutions of the scrambled egg brains I am > seeing on this usenet group and long experience of this insulting fool, > Stafford makes me jump to conclusions incautiously. Aaaaand the Hypocrisy Meter lights up into the red...
From: John Stafford on 7 Jan 2010 16:06 In article <40ff7a5d-d930-46b7-9516-dff2874d8637(a)j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 7, 1:54�pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > Anyway, I also probably made a mistake here - you see I am only just in > > training in fathoming the convolutions of the scrambled egg brains I am > > seeing on this usenet group and long experience of this insulting fool, > > Stafford makes me jump to conclusions incautiously. > > Aaaaand the Hypocrisy Meter lights up into the red... And I "made her jump...". Hey, if I could make her do anything it would be to have her check into an asylum for an overhaul.
From: Michael Gordge on 7 Jan 2010 16:15
On Jan 8, 3:38 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > OK, so are you saying that Euclid's Fifth Postulate is not a > postulate? Nope, I am asking does it (the EFP) have eyes ears nose hands skin, is it dead alive, animal, vegetable, mineral, what color shape size is it, what is its nature, how does it differ from any and all other forms of matte? MG |