Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: PD on 12 Jan 2010 16:55 On Jan 12, 3:32 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > > 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. Why are you relying on "ewoll" to tell you what Euclid's fifth postulate says, rather than just looking up what it says for yourself. You are allowed to use Google where you're incarcerated, right? Once you find out what Euclid's fifth postulate says, you can give me a yes or no answer as to whether it is in fact a postulate. PD
From: Androcles on 12 Jan 2010 16:58 "Phuckwit Duck" <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote in message years ago: I have to admit that I am demoralized at the moment. I had hoped that we could fight ignorance with a proactive rather than a reactive approach, but this is clearly the improper forum for that. A quick survey of the length of threads initiated by or drifting to nonsense compared to the length of threads based on sound thinking reveals the true interest in the proposal. While it would be a useful project to contribute to the FAQ, the intent was to educate in the context of discussion, a virtual "classroom" if you will. There's no point in contributing to a reference that none of the "students" will read or attempt to learn from. The intention was to focus on *exactly* what is wrong in someone's thinking (which varies from person to person), set it straight, and then make progress from there. I had high hopes -- really -- that perhaps one misguided soul would read something sensible and say, "Oh... Really?...Oh. I see I was confused. OK, I get it now. Now what about...?" My head knew better, my heart does not. [sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a duck to appear] PD ============================================= Androcles -- [waiting with a time bomb for a duck to appear].
From: John Stafford on 12 Jan 2010 17:35 In article <f66d5eec-72b5-4672-8788-61d2d7d139e4(a)h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldoraz(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. If it is true (as far as we can know) that the universe is convoluted then Euclid's fifth postulate could be false at the universal scale. It remains that it is true and cannot be false in the realm of Euclidean space because it proofs, therefore it is appropriate to consider it an axiom for problems related to Euclidean geometry/space. Understanding the scope of a problem, and the success of axioms within the scope of the problem leads to knowledge. It is not knowledge. It LEADS to knowledge, even if it can be shown to be false later.
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 12 Jan 2010 19:18 On Jan 13, 8:48 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 12, 3:19 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > 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. > > This seems to be a remarkable statement, since an axiom is by > definition assumed to be true. Thus it is difficult to imagine how one > would hold from the outset that the same statement is assumed to be > true and yet false. > No, you are confusing a number of things. An axiom that is deemed to be true is not by definition or otherwise *thereby* true. If someone comes along and proposes some few axioms and shows off how impressive that so few can generate so much, it is still an open question whether the axioms are true or false or perhaps something else.
From: Michael Gordge on 12 Jan 2010 21:22
On Jan 13, 9:36 am, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Truth is something more powerful than mere > game playing or human belief or proposal. So what is it? MG |