Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: dorayme on 9 Jan 2010 16:53 In article <J2V1n.4887$nR4.4038(a)newsfe01.iad>, DanB <abc(a)some.net> wrote: > dorayme wrote: > > In article<1XP1n.3264$5m.1880(a)newsfe12.iad>, DanB<abc(a)some.net> > > wrote: > > > >> dorayme wrote: > >>> > >>> Ah another coward who will not front up to a simple non-abusive > >>> question.... > >> > >> Considering your track record on this topic, that is as laughable as it > >> gets. > >> > >>> But instead is rude in reply. > >> > >> Err, pot, kettle? > >> > > > > No, there is a difference... > > Not in your little world, of course...... I have to be rid of you DanB because your miserable obscure constipated answers are not worth the space in my newsreader. Goodbye. -- dorayme
From: dorayme on 9 Jan 2010 17:04 In article <Mv02n.13582$ED.4243(a)newsfe12.ams2>, "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_r> wrote: > "chazwin" <chazwyman(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:d5cb2f4d-c198-4316-92ba-ba4db19711dd(a)u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 9, 3:53 am, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Jan 8, 9:27 pm, chazwin <chazwy...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Hume pointed out this problem in the early 18th C, but despite these > > > difficulties the last 200 years+ has used inductive methods to design > > > all the wonders of technology and we have reached to moon. > > > > If "inductive methods" merely means "whatever scientists do when they > > do the non-deductive bits of their work" naturally it is true. But > > what use is this. That is not any answer to the problem of induction. > > > > > Whilst we > > > have to always be aware that our inductive knowledge is a question of > > > probabilistic truth. > > > > Nor is this. The problem of induction is not a search for 100% > > probability. It is a search for anything over 50%. Until this is > > understood, it is impossible to understand what so troubled Hume and > > modern versions of the problem > > Hume's own answer to the problem of induction was mitigated > skepticism. Which means that although law-like statements > built from induction are not > 100% certain, if they work they it is possible to have a pragmatic > belief in them > until they are replaced by something more accurate or probable. > No, he simply did not have a real answer. Forget that he was so great and do not overestimate things he said. He failed to find any satisfactory view to the challenges he so brilliantly made. > Thus Newtonian physics woks in most cases. But Hume would have > approved > of the change in science offered by Einstein. > We all approve. It is quite irrelevant, I am afraid! The problem is to understand what it is that makes it reasonable and is there a sensible form of reasoning involved usefully to be called inductive. What is it? Philosophical sketicism is often not any real practical skepticism, it is a call to understanding. In my experience, many people misunderstand this and seem to think philosophy is a much sillier and trivial pursuit than it is. -- dorayme
From: Michael Gordge on 9 Jan 2010 17:28 On Jan 9, 8:31 pm, chazwin <chazwy...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Your problem is that you think you are certain. But which of course you keep telling the readers how uncertain you are of that. Why dont ewe explain chazzzz, just how uncertain are you that you can never be certain that free-will is just a myth? Is that because the supernatural undefinable being that you are uncertain as to whether it is or is not controlling your each and every idea, choice and action may have in fact given you free-will but you just refuse to acknowledge it for fear of being sent to hell perhaps? Uncertainty, as you keep remidning us, is your uncertain domain, I dont understand how you can be so uncertain that you are so uncertain of being soooo uncertain, how uncertain of your uncertainty are you chazzz? MG
From: Aleph on 9 Jan 2010 19:36 In article <0731a274-f2ee-420e-9683- 0d28d40de29c(a)a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, sent to sci.physics on Mon, 28 Dec 2009 02:22:39 -0800 (PST), Y.Porat <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> imparted these words of wisdom: > > On Dec 27, 4:46 pm, Aleph <Usenet....(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > In article <461224e9-e767-4343-930b-5556eee769b7 > > @m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, sent to sci.physics on Fri, 25 Dec 2009 > > 23:28:04 -0800 (PST), Y.Porat <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> imparted these words > > of wisdom: > > > > > i start to suspect that actually > > > Aleph = PD .......!! > > > > Dont you get bored of being wrong? > > > > Please try to spend a little less time thinking I am someone else or a > > little more time learning science. > > > > > 2 > > > until now i was looking for PD s innovations > > > and found not6hing !!! > > > > Your failure to use google is no one elses problem. > > > > > so we have here an abstract philosopher parrot > > > > Blah, blah. > > > > -- > > Aleph > > > > This article was posted to USENET, please reply in that manner. Emails > > to this account will be ignored. > > ---------------- > i start to - even more -suspect that: > > Aleph =PD ..... > Well, given how clueless you are, this is hardly surprising - is it? -- Aleph This article was posted to USENET, please reply in that manner. Emails to this account will be ignored.
From: Androcles on 9 Jan 2010 19:48
"Marshall" <marshall.spight(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:ce9c4122-35ec-4440-bfaf-82a57aac36ea(a)f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... What do you suggest I do differently? ====================================== Dump gmail and use a conventional newsreader when posting to usenet. Else stop complaining like a woman about putting the seat down when she fails to put it up. |