Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: PD on 7 Jan 2010 16:24 On Jan 7, 3:15 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > 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 I know what you're asking. I asked you whether Euclid's fifth postulate is a postulate or not. This should require no more than a Yes or a No as an answer from you.
From: dorayme on 7 Jan 2010 16:42 In article <hi5g940577(a)news5.newsguy.com>, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: > 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? Well, I have not been party to any deep discussion about this and have not much used them here. But I am happy to speak to your question anyway. An axiom is a proposition in a system of propositions that is accepted as true without needing to be proved from within the system. Usually the word is used where the propositions are not merely conditionally held to be true but are simply self evident (or at least more obviously true than any other thing that we can think of that it could itself be derived from). -- dorayme
From: dorayme on 7 Jan 2010 16:51 In article <974aaf56-13b9-41b2-a7af-6424ab332ff8(a)r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 7, 3:15 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > > 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 > > I know what you're asking. I asked you whether Euclid's fifth > postulate is a postulate or not. > This should require no more than a Yes or a No as an answer from you. Trying to rationalise with Michael Gordge says a lot about what a dill you really are! -- dorayme
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 7 Jan 2010 19:30 On Jan 8, 9:24 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.net> wrote: > Good sample! I'm using your and Aldoraz's posts to demonstrate text > analysis to find cohorts and same authors. Would you be interested in > the outcome? You do that, it is the sort of trivial exercise that you would be better suited at. Do it in the basketweaving class though, not here. Here we are supposed to discuss philosophy, you dope.
From: J. Clarke on 7 Jan 2010 19:24
dorayme wrote: > In article <hi5g940577(a)news5.newsguy.com>, > "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: > >> 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? > > Well, I have not been party to any deep discussion about this and have > not much used them here. But I am happy to speak to your question > anyway. An axiom is a proposition in a system of propositions that is > accepted as true without needing to be proved from within the system. > Usually the word is used where the propositions are not merely > conditionally held to be true but are simply self evident (or at least > more obviously true than any other thing that we can think of that it > could itself be derived from). I see. When you say that something is "axiomatic" do you mean that you are stating an axiom or do you mean that you are deducing something from axioms? |