Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: dorayme on 11 Jan 2010 15:31 In article <068a857e-a77c-4334-a35c-98770196cfd2(a)c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > And anyway, axioms themselves also come from > > somewhere. They are not just arbitrary creations > > of man. > > Why yes, yes, they are. This latter is the only thing you bother to say in reply? Do you think this usenet group is some sort of opinion poll? Has it ever occurred to you that it is for discussing philosophical issues and giving intelligent arguments and sticking with them? -- dorayme
From: John Stafford on 11 Jan 2010 17:18 In article <doraymeRidThis-F346EA.07284412012010(a)news.albasani.net>, dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > If you do not believe this, check the history of almost every thread I > have been on. But, having experienced your weasel ways here, your > unforthcomingness when the topic discussion gets pressing, you will not > be able to see this even if you looked. You will skew all the stats and > take unrepresentative cases for the main data, you will make very kind > of simple scientific mistake. Likelihood of dorame == aldoraz is now 82%.
From: PD on 11 Jan 2010 17:46 On Jan 11, 2:31 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > In article > <068a857e-a77c-4334-a35c-98770196c...(a)c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, > > PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > And anyway, axioms themselves also come from > > > somewhere. They are not just arbitrary creations > > > of man. > > > Why yes, yes, they are. > > This latter is the only thing you bother to say in reply? Do you think > this usenet group is some sort of opinion poll? No, it's not an opinion poll. It's a matter of definition. No opinions about it. > Has it ever occurred to > you that it is for discussing philosophical issues and giving > intelligent arguments and sticking with them? Why argue with a loon about definitions if he'd rather argue about it than look it up? Seems like a fight-picking waste of time to me. > > -- > dorayme
From: Michael Gordge on 11 Jan 2010 17:48 On Jan 12, 5:28 am, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > No, you don't see at all.. Speaking of not being able to see, still waiting for your explanation as to how you could be confused / uncertain of the differences between the elephant and the ant. MG
From: PD on 11 Jan 2010 18:05
On Jan 11, 8:53 am, Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 11, 6:47 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 8, 6:19 pm, Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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. > > > Why yes, yes, they are. > > Your post almost demands the response "Oh no > they are not." But that wouldn't be much use, > would it? > > Do you feel the same way about the natural numbers? > Are they an arbitrary creation of man? > > Do you have any argument you'd care to supply to > justify your position? It's really a matter of definition more than anything, as far as I know. The natural numbers are a concept, but I don't think they are an axiom. On the other hand, there is a set of axioms (the Peano axioms) that are used to rigorously define them. Notice that one of the Peano axioms is precisely the one that ensures the *mathematical* sense of induction will work at all. I'll reiterate one of the examples I've cited in this thread: Euclid's fifth postulate. Now, either that is an arbitrary creation of man or it has some undeniable objective truth. But if the latter, then there is a serious problem with Riemannian geometry, which disbands the validity of the fifth postulate. Since both of those systems seem to have equally good applications not only in the mind but to real life, it seems difficult to say that they are both objectively true. On the other hand, if they are arbitrary creations of man, then it makes sense how the geometries that stem from them both have value. |