Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: J. Clarke on 7 Jan 2010 23:56 Androcles wrote: > "Marshall" <marshall.spight(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:02992afd-889d-4a84-a905-27b4860735b7(a)21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 7, 6:15 pm, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: >> >>>> In math, which is really a logic game, the >>>> axioms don't necessarily have any basis in the physical universe, >> >>> It is an open question whether it is not *just* a logic game. There >>> are semantics. And it is not clear what "having a basis in the >>> physical universe" really means. >> >> No, it is not an open question. Mathematics is a game, an >> intellectual exercise, any relation that it bears to practical >> reality is purely coincidental. > > That's bullshit. <plonk>
From: Michael Gordge on 8 Jan 2010 00:29 On Jan 8, 6:24 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I know what you're asking. I asked you whether Euclid's fifth > postulate is a postulate or not. What are the premises? Are the lines converging or they parallel? They cant be both. You do realize there are no lines in reality, they are mind dependent and only matter to man's survival, when a problem of matter / survival is solved with them. MG
From: M Purcell on 8 Jan 2010 00:45 On Jan 7, 9:29 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > On Jan 8, 6:24 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I know what you're asking. I asked you whether Euclid's fifth > > postulate is a postulate or not. > > What are the premises? Are the lines converging or they parallel? They > cant be both. It depends on the geometry, plane or otherwise. In either case the other postulates remain the same. > You do realize there are no lines in reality, they are mind dependent > and only matter to man's survival, when a problem of matter / survival > is solved with them. The fact that people use such concepts to solve problems makes them real. You may not see a national boarder but you probably don't want to be on the wrong side of it.
From: Les Cargill on 8 Jan 2010 00:47 Marshall wrote: > On Jan 7, 6:15 pm, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: >>>> In math, which is really a logic game, the >>>> axioms don't necessarily have any basis in the physical universe, >>> It is an open question whether it is not *just* a logic game. There >>> are semantics. And it is not clear what "having a basis in the >>> physical universe" really means. >> No, it is not an open question. Mathematics is a game, an intellectual >> exercise, any relation that it bears to practical reality is purely >> coincidental. > > That's bullshit. > > > Marshall Not really. -- Les Cargill
From: Marshall on 8 Jan 2010 01:51
On Jan 7, 8:55 pm, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > dorayme wrote: > > >> In physics the rules were selected because they bear some relation to > >> observation. The observation does not verify the rules, the rules > >> are the result of the observation. > > > Not in any sense of "relationship" or "the result of" that anyone > > around these parts is explaining or understanding. It is a big and > > open question in the philosophy of science. I don't mind chatting > > further about it. > > You do some grad work in mathematics and physics and get back to us. As > things stand you need more background than can be provided via USENET to get > to where you understand the issues under discussion. ROFL. This response is just as gussied up version of your response to me. Which is to say, content-free condescension. Question: if math is the pointless abstraction that you're claiming it is, why would anyone ever bother to do graduate work in it? Marshall |