Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: dorayme on 12 Jan 2010 01:49 In article <2sU2n.18279$Sh7.5672(a)newsfe25.iad>, Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > Marshall wrote: > > > > It has been proposed on this thread that math is just a game > > with no significance or utility, except by coincidence (this is > > bullshit.) > > Mathematics is a game of the mind. Whether or not that has any utility > or significance, or that is by coincidence, or that is "bullshit" doesn't > matter, to the fact that it's just a game. It can be treated as a game with strict rules. That does not mean it is just a game nor that it is a coincidence that mathematics is useful to us. What matters depends on what the question is. If we are interested in what maths is, it is simply false that it is just a game and it is false that it has mere coincidental practical applications. -- dorayme
From: Michael Gordge on 12 Jan 2010 01:58 On Jan 11, 11:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I didn't see a yes or no anywhere in your answer, Thats encouraging, all you need do now is to expand non-contradictory identification into your own ideas, e.g. lines that are parallel do not converge, intersect and or diverge no matter how far their journey. MG
From: Nam Nguyen on 12 Jan 2010 02:20 dorayme wrote: > In article <2sU2n.18279$Sh7.5672(a)newsfe25.iad>, > Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > >> Marshall wrote: >>> It has been proposed on this thread that math is just a game >>> with no significance or utility, except by coincidence (this is >>> bullshit.) >> Mathematics is a game of the mind. Whether or not that has any utility >> or significance, or that is by coincidence, or that is "bullshit" doesn't >> matter, to the fact that it's just a game. > > It can be treated as a game with strict rules. If mathematical truths are absolute, existing independently outside human mind then mathematics wouldn't be a game. But that's not the case. Ask yourself which particular truth that can't be proven false in a different context, and you would see that it's just a game of choosing reasoning frameworks, manipulating symbols, interpreting models, etc... > That does not mean it is > just a game nor that it is a coincidence that mathematics is useful to > us. It's a misconception that games in general have to be useless to human beings.
From: dorayme on 12 Jan 2010 02:28 In article <6pV2n.3782$ZB2.1447(a)newsfe13.iad>, Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > dorayme wrote: > > In article <2sU2n.18279$Sh7.5672(a)newsfe25.iad>, > > Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > > > >> Marshall wrote: > >>> It has been proposed on this thread that math is just a game > >>> with no significance or utility, except by coincidence (this is > >>> bullshit.) > >> Mathematics is a game of the mind. Whether or not that has any utility > >> or significance, or that is by coincidence, or that is "bullshit" doesn't > >> matter, to the fact that it's just a game. > > > > It can be treated as a game with strict rules. > > If mathematical truths are absolute, existing independently outside > human mind then mathematics wouldn't be a game. But that's not the case. > Ask yourself which particular truth that can't be proven false in a > different context, and you would see that it's just a game of choosing > reasoning frameworks, manipulating symbols, interpreting models, etc... Well, I don't know how you would work it so that one could see that there are no primes between 1 and 21 and such things without changing the *meanings* of the words used. > > > That does not mean it is > > just a game nor that it is a coincidence that mathematics is useful to > > us. > > It's a misconception that games in general have to be useless to human beings. Who is falling for that misconception. Neither of us! But the question that is relevant is what sort of use. Mere use because it reduces stress levels is not much relevant! -- dorayme
From: Nam Nguyen on 12 Jan 2010 02:34
dorayme wrote: > In article <6pV2n.3782$ZB2.1447(a)newsfe13.iad>, > Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > >> dorayme wrote: >>> In article <2sU2n.18279$Sh7.5672(a)newsfe25.iad>, >>> Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >>> >>>> Marshall wrote: >>>>> It has been proposed on this thread that math is just a game >>>>> with no significance or utility, except by coincidence (this is >>>>> bullshit.) >>>> Mathematics is a game of the mind. Whether or not that has any utility >>>> or significance, or that is by coincidence, or that is "bullshit" doesn't >>>> matter, to the fact that it's just a game. >>> It can be treated as a game with strict rules. >> If mathematical truths are absolute, existing independently outside >> human mind then mathematics wouldn't be a game. But that's not the case. >> Ask yourself which particular truth that can't be proven false in a >> different context, and you would see that it's just a game of choosing >> reasoning frameworks, manipulating symbols, interpreting models, etc... > > Well, I don't know how you would work it so that one could see that > there are no primes between 1 and 21 and such things without changing > the *meanings* of the words used. Keep the "meanings"; just change the frameworks, axioms, models, or a combination of. > >>> That does not mean it is >>> just a game nor that it is a coincidence that mathematics is useful to >>> us. >> It's a misconception that games in general have to be useless to human beings. > > Who is falling for that misconception. Neither of us! But the question > that is relevant is what sort of use. Mere use because it reduces stress > levels is not much relevant! The point is mathematics is still just a game, even though it might be a useful one by no coincidence. |