Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 8 Jan 2010 09:48 J. Clarke wrote: > jmfbahciv wrote: >> 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? > > Not really. Maybe it's that Hume is more famous. > > Or this year's PC fad of the congenscenti is Hume. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 8 Jan 2010 09:49 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? > So you don't know what axioms are either? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 8 Jan 2010 09:50 PD 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... Nah. No interest in learning anything and probably one of those who enjoy doing production prevention. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 8 Jan 2010 09:53 Patricia Aldoraz wrote: > 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. Then why are you posting to sci.physics? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 8 Jan 2010 10:00
J. Clarke wrote: > dorayme wrote: >> In article <hi6gu1$b7n$3(a)news.eternal-september.org>, >> Les Cargill <lcargill99(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >>> 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. >>> >> >> Really deep Les! Stafford would be so proud of your succinctness. You >> two share a desk in the basketweaving class? > > Funny how you consider anybody who actually knows anything about math to be > "basketweaving". > Which also requires knowledge he doesn't have. /BAH |