Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 9 Jan 2010 20:18 On Jan 10, 11:48 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_r> wrote: > stop complaining like a woman about putting > the seat down when she fails to put it up. I wonder if it is a mere coincidence that so many abusing usenet guys, the ones that start all the fights, the ones that seem uninterested in philosophy, are the most animated when airing their sexist piggish attitudes?
From: jmfbahciv on 10 Jan 2010 10:19 DanB wrote: > jmfbahciv wrote: >> DanB 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. >> >> No. Axioms lay a premise. then you can construct >> geometries and algebras based on that premise. > > Yes, I just used different language, but said the same thing. That "different language" causes a lot of false conclusions made by people who don't know what the Scientific Method is. There is no _truth_ in science. This "truth" thing is used by a lot of politicians to lead these people by the nose. >After all > a premise is a premise. Now I may have missed it but until now I had not > seen this discussion move into the realm of algebras and geometries. I was trying to figure out how to communicate with certain ^W people. Unfortunately, they are purposely unaware of anything to do with math, too. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 10 Jan 2010 10:25 Androcles wrote: > "Marshall" <marshall.spight(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:75685b04-9687-47d7-a322-e9325d214fc5(a)h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... [attributes hand-edited in/BAH] >> I want to emphasize that the above equations are not >> mine, but were posted by Androcles. He quoted my >> message but didn't put ">" in front of the lines; his >> not following the convention may obscure who wrote >> what. > > ====================================== > I want to emphasize that the above equations are mine, and were > posted by me. I quoted your message but Outlook Express didn't > put ">" in front of the lines; Google is not following the convention > of Usenet and may obscure naive gmail users from seasoned Usenet > users. That which is mine falls below the divider "=====". Then fix your settings! /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 10 Jan 2010 10:26 Patricia Aldoraz wrote: > On Jan 10, 11:48 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_r> > wrote: > >> stop complaining like a woman about putting >> the seat down when she fails to put it up. > > I wonder if it is a mere coincidence that so many abusing usenet guys, > the ones that start all the fights, the ones that seem uninterested in > philosophy, are the most animated when airing their sexist piggish > attitudes? <snort> You should talk. You've demonstrated the most sexist piggish attitude of them all. /BAH
From: DanB on 10 Jan 2010 11:03
jmfbahciv wrote: > DanB wrote: >> jmfbahciv wrote: >>> DanB 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. >>> >>> No. Axioms lay a premise. then you can construct >>> geometries and algebras based on that premise. >> >> Yes, I just used different language, but said the same thing. > > That "different language" causes a lot of false conclusions > made by people who don't know what the Scientific Method is. > There is no _truth_ in science. This "truth" thing is used > by a lot of politicians to lead these people by the nose. I've said it many times, there is no proof and there is no truth in science. But math is a different discipline and why I quoted 'accepted' instead of 'truth'. >> After all a premise is a premise. Now I may have missed it but until >> now I had not seen this discussion move into the realm of algebras and >> geometries. > > I was trying to figure out how to communicate with certain ^W people. > Unfortunately, they are purposely unaware of anything to do with > math, too. Well, this is usenet. Just because someone can type doesn't mean they are here for anything else but to 'play the man'. All it takes is for their high school teacher to miss represent 'laws of physics' and they think they know it all. DanB. |