Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 13 Jan 2010 10:13 J. Clarke wrote: > jmfbahciv wrote: >> Nam Nguyen 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. >> Which can be written down on paper. >> >>> 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. >>> >> Have you done any cost analysis lately? Or materials design? Or >> built a bridge? Or figured out the load of the roof on your house? > > That sort of thing uses one branch of mathematics that coincidentally has > real-world utility. This is a small subset of the totality of mathematics. > Yes, I know. However, there exist posters in this thread who don't even know about real-world utility. I figured out after I posted the above reply that the poster knew the difference. /BAH
From: DanB on 13 Jan 2010 11:23 Errol wrote: > On Jan 13, 10:12 am, dorayme<doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: >> In article<Vld3n.32973$Gf3.11...(a)newsfe22.iad>, >> Nam Nguyen<namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > >>> Yes. Put a pig on a small enough asteroid that has low gravity and it could >>> fly! (And you wouldn't need a Martian help for that). Trivial fact perhaps >>> but nothing intriguing. >> >> I thought you might not be understanding: a pig on a flying object is >> not a pig flying in the normal meaning of the phrases. >> > > Maybe you could provide an example of how a pig might fly in the > normal meaning of the phrases. > > Maybe the pig came to earth from planet zork in the 43rd dimension > from our causal reference and has super powers on earth. > Maybe an earth pig with swine flu was infected by a bird with bird flu > while eating radioactive swill and grew wings. > maybe a pig drank red bull > > Please enlighten me. I think you and the pig are over his head...
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 13 Jan 2010 19:40 > We are talking about reasoning, not truth. You cannot talk about reasoning without talking about or mentioning truth. But of course, in your case and in the case of all the basketweavers (your peer review group), no one knows the hell of what they are talking about. Did something bad happen to all of your brains or have you all been that way a long time?
From: Michael Gordge on 13 Jan 2010 19:50 On Jan 14, 9:40 am, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > We are talking about reasoning, not truth. > > You cannot talk about reasoning without talking about or mentioning > truth. Truth corresponds to reality and reasoning is the only means man has to grasp reality, reasoning therefore is not Patty's strong point. MG
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 13 Jan 2010 19:51
On Jan 14, 1:15 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > dorayme wrote: > > In article <Vld3n.32973$Gf3.11...(a)newsfe22.iad>, > > Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > > >> dorayme 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. > .... > >> Let me repeat: Mathematics is a game of the mind. > > > You can repeat it as much as you like. It does not make it true and it > > still needs an argument. > > It's simply the way that it is. What is the way that there are no primes between 0 and 21? Have you doe the The Desert problem you were given? You are very quiet on this one? You have a triple PHd in Maths, how come it is taking you so long? |