Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 12 Jan 2010 16:19 On Jan 13, 2:50 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 11, 9:20 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On Jan 12, 10:05 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > The natural numbers are a concept, but I don't think they are an > > > axiom. > > > An axiom says something, the natural numbers simply exist. > > > > 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. > > > These are not the only possibilities. > > Elaborate, please. The other possibility that you missed, amazingly is that it is simply false. Now, because you have been sent here to this Google Group (a sort of Hell) for punishment, let me add: Make absolutely sure now that you will rant and rage and abuse me for pointing this out or say something teensy and cryptic. What a low down creep like you will never ever do is be a man and say, "Yes, that is right and I missed that one!"
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 12 Jan 2010 16:23 On Jan 13, 2:45 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 11, 5:16 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > Now I am done with you, I pass you over to the good Patricia who can > > kick you in the balls when she has time to look at Google Groupers, you > > have forfeited the right to appear in my newsreader. > > > Bye! > > Bye-bye! Enjoy your bile tea! *Your* little tea party, son, has just begun! Welcome to Her Majesty's Basketweavers Facility (aka Google Groups). Now empty your pockets...
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 12 Jan 2010 16:27 On Jan 12, 11:21 pm, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: How are you going with The Desert Problem you were given, Mr Mathematician?
From: Michael Gordge on 12 Jan 2010 16:32 On Jan 13, 12:51 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Still lacking a "yes" or "no" answer to a yes or no question. > Is this a form of passive-aggressive behavior that is comfortable for > you? It is reasoning, which is obviously very uncomfortable for you. Besides Ewoll says the lines are diverging or converging, but he wont say which, you say they are parallel but then not parallel, yes or no is not possible to such stupidity, you need to sort your story / premises. MG
From: PD on 12 Jan 2010 16:44
On Jan 12, 1:50 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > In article <sCV2n.3785$ZB2.3...(a)newsfe13.iad>, > Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > > > dorayme wrote: > > > 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. > > You mean like "A pig can fly" can be changed into a falsity by a Martian > with different "frameworks, axioms, models", but who means exactly what > we mean by "pig", and "fly" and "is". What an intriguing suggestion! This is where science steps in. For the purpose of *choosing* axioms in science is to find a system of axioms and consequents that actually describes nature. Which means that the statements it produces match observation. So while it is certainly possible to choose a set of axioms by which it logically follows that "A pig can fly" is a true statement, this statement can then be checked by experimental test. When it does not work so well, then this casts doubt on the chosen axioms. > > > > > >>> 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. > > The point is that it is not always just a game then. > > -- > dorayme |