Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: Michael Gordge on 17 Dec 2009 15:15 On Dec 15, 11:41 am, "Daniel T." <danie...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > Soundness and validity have two different meanings. A "sound" argument > requires true premises, a "valid" argument does not. Clue for the clueless Kantians, a sound argument would be, 'true / truth is the recognition of reality and its not possible to validate fairy tales'. MG
From: Michael Gordge on 17 Dec 2009 15:17 On Dec 15, 12:31 pm, "Daniel T." <danie...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > It may be that I have to include qualia as well as induction and > definition... Still waiting for you to explain how preceeding fallacy with the adjective logical changes the meaning of fallacy. MG
From: Michael Gordge on 17 Dec 2009 15:22 On Dec 15, 12:23 pm, "Daniel T." <danie...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > > The way you know that what you are thinking of explains so much is > through inductive reasoning. It has always explained things in the past. > > Maybe if you give an example? Clue for the clueless Kantians, just as preceeding fallacy with logical does nothing for the meaning of fallacy, so too, reasoning does not change in meaning by preceeding it with the silly Kantian inspired adjective inductive. MG
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 17 Dec 2009 16:21 On Dec 18, 12:44 am, jbriggs444 <jbriggs...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 17, 4:27 am, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On Dec 17, 5:19 pm, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > > > > On Dec 17, 12:12 am, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote:> In article <hgbr3n$vn...(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > > > > . But as far as I can see there is no > > > > > logical form of induction that makes any conclusion more likely than > > > > not. > > > > But as far as I can see there is no form of induction that is other > > > than "more likely than not ". > > > Please inform my naivette. > > The scenario of "it hurt when I put my hand on the stove" is not "more > likely than not" but rather "more than negligibly likely". However, > even that tentative probability estimate is good enough to act on and > avoid putting your hand on the stove a second time. > > There's no 50/50 boundary condition on inductive reasoning. At least > not in my book. Your definition may vary. > > > Yes, sure, one can enumerate past instances of something and couch the > > conclusion in cautious terms. This X was red, this Y was red..., > > therefore This Z will probably be red. But this would not change the > > problem of trying to justify that it is *logical* process. Anyone can > > say the latter train of thoughts, the question is what makes it a > > logical process rather than a description of how people behave. > > Bayesian analysis? > The fact that it is capable of generating a conclusion? (albeit an > uncertain one) > > Anyway, why do you care whether inductive reasoning is or is not > _called_ a "logical" process? > Because there is a problem if it is not. The idea of logical is the idea of some sort of objective necessity. Now this is not to insist that a perfectly good logical argument must leave us with some conclusion which points to an absolutely certain prediction. > It is what it is regardless of what it is called and regardless of > which notional categories we choose to place it in or exclude it from. If one is questioning the idea, as dorayme is, that induction as he defines it is any sort of logical reasoning, then it hardly helps to say induction is what it is. What is it?
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 17 Dec 2009 16:27
On Dec 18, 1:33 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > In article > <1f8687c7-56a9-41df-8beb-4df0f15e9...(a)a10g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, > > jbriggs444 <jbriggs...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Anyway, why do you care whether inductive reasoning is or is not > > _called_ a "logical" process? > > > It is what it is regardless of what it is called and regardless of > > which notional categories we choose to place it in or exclude it from. > > My view is that people new to logic misunderstand what it is And my view is that people new to philosophy itself and its traditions, or who have difficulty getting the main ideas and problems often start talking about quantum physics or fuzzy logic or whatever the latest trendy thing is they have in their mind. - they are > most familiar with the simple, formal binary type of logic - that and > some are computer programmers where logic is binary. > > Many misunderstand what fuzzy logic is, too. Perhaps you misunderstand how difficult the essential heart of the problem of induction is? If you think fuzzy logic addresses the problem, and I am not ruling out that this might be an interesting avenue to explore, enlighten us all on how it solves the problem. |