Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: DanB on 8 Jan 2010 19:18 dorayme wrote: > > Ah another coward who will not front up to a simple non-abusive > question.... Considering your track record on this topic, that is as laughable as it gets. > But instead is rude in reply. Err, pot, kettle? >>> The point is that in a game, truth does not figure prominently. In maths >>> and physics, truth is a bigish player. >> >> See what I mean? > > No, I do not see what you mean at all and you do not see what I mean... I see what you 'believe'. Good enough for me....
From: Marshall on 8 Jan 2010 19:19 On Jan 8, 8:19 am, DanB <a...(a)some.net> wrote: > Marshall wrote: > > > Or again I ask: if math is just a game, then > > what basis is there for claiming anything > > like "correctness" for any particular mathematical > > statement? > > Axioms that are 'accepted' as truth. That's supposed to be the basis? Just that noun phrase by itself? And anyway, axioms themselves also come from somewhere. They are not just arbitrary creations of man. Suppose I want to investigate two-element algebras. How many unary functions are possible? I claim that there is only a single correct answer to that question: four. This can be established by simple case analysis. If axioms are what it's all about, please demonstrate so. Show me how choosing some axioms that are 'accepted' as truth can make the right answer come out three. Ideally you will also show how accepting those axioms also makes case analysis come up with the answer three. Marshall
From: Marshall on 8 Jan 2010 19:30 On Jan 8, 4:18 pm, DanB <a...(a)some.net> wrote: > dorayme wrote: > > > Ah another coward who will not front up to a simple non-abusive > > question.... > > Considering your track record on this topic, that is as laughable as it > gets. > > > But instead is rude in reply. > > Err, pot, kettle? So you admit that you were "black" aka rude but justify it by saying that the other guy was also rude? > I see what you 'believe'. Good enough for me.... However you slice it, your last couple of replies have been insulting, condescending, and free of any argumentation. Maybe you were justifiably driven to it by things that happened on some other thread I'm not aware of, but regardless, the claim that you did "not front up to a simple non-abusive question" is plainly accurate. Marshall
From: Michael Gordge on 8 Jan 2010 20:01 On Jan 9, 7:25 am, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > The point is that in a game, truth does not figure prominently. In maths > and physics, truth is a bigish player. But of course being Kantian you can never really really know the meaning of what is and what is not the truth. MG
From: Michael Gordge on 8 Jan 2010 22:41
On Dec 24 2009, 6:13 am, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > Fancy thinking that you will get the least sense from this poster! It > reflects poorly on your judgement. This idiot knows absolutely nothing > and is here to merely troll about, use foul language, say "ewe" and drop > Kant's good name. What makes ewe believe that anyone but an idiot would suggest Kant was anything but a POC idiot? MG |