Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: Nam Nguyen on 15 Jan 2010 02:25 Patricia Aldoraz wrote: > On Jan 15, 5:07 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >> Patricia Aldoraz wrote: >>> On Jan 15, 2:44 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >>>> Patricia Aldoraz wrote: >>>>> dorayme is quite right, not all maths is a game. >>>> Ok. Let's get technical. Which part of math is a game and which >>>> part is part of the Reality and therefore isn't a game of the mind? >>>> And why? >>> I am sorry to say I am going to have to pass you back to dorayme. >>> It knows more than I do about this question. >> Interesting isn't it? The question was addressed _to you_ and was directly >> about what _you_ uttered: "dorayme is quite right, not all maths is a game"! >> >> Did _you_ really know what you were talking about when you defended dorayme? > > Hang on there old bean, are you here to have a personal fight, to try > to humiliate and show up people but are not interested in the actual > issue? I'm not trying to humiliate anyone here: they brought that upon themselves. I'm here to defend certain truths about mathematical reasonings. You said "[dorayme is quite right,] not all maths is a game" which I believe is wrong. My first question to you is short and was meant _for you_ to technically elaborate your statement. Have you elaborated on your view in responding to my question? Of course not, you're not responding to a technical question. And your posts don't have evidences you had an intention to do so. If one can't or doesn't intend to technically defend what one oneself utters then humiliation wouldn't come from others. I hope you understand that. > > That is what is really interesting, isn't it? I think dorayme will be > quite alarmed at having you back. But you know, you are starting to > irritate me. I want it to have you back. Be polite to dorayme and you > will get on fine. > > > >
From: Zinnic on 15 Jan 2010 06:57 On Jan 14, 5:01 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > In article <SAC3n.6$jE...(a)newsfe27.ams2>, > > "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_r> wrote: > > "David Bernier" <david...(a)videotron.ca> wrote in message > >news:himqro0cu4(a)news3.newsguy.com... > > > I've been thinking about knowledge. How can somebody come to the > > > conclusion, once they think they know something, that they > > > actually know that thing? What are the steps to follow? > > There are no steps, they have all been taken prior to thinking they know > something. If you are meaning by "thinking they know" just "they are not > sure" then one makes sure one way or the other by rechecking the > evidence for the proposition in question. > > -- > dorayme Now explain how, when they think they have made sure they know, they actually know rather than still merely think they know.
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 15 Jan 2010 19:20 On Jan 15, 6:25 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > > You said "[dorayme is quite right,] not all maths is a game" which I believe > is wrong. My first question to you is short and was meant _for you_ to > technically elaborate your statement. Looks like dorayme is not interested in having you back yet. I think it is waiting to see if you say the least sensible thing. So, it falls to me, sadly to have deal with you after all. Damn! At some stage recently you did ask an interesting question (albeit in a confused way): "Which part of math is a game and which part is part of the Reality and therefore isn't a game of the mind? You seem not to entertain the possibility that all of maths can be treated as game but that not all are or have to be so treated. Your questions and assumptions are confused. Anyway, lets see how more or less meaningless game might be applied to the real world. It involves a thought experiment. You probably do not know that the game of chess does not depend on the exact shape of the pieces or the colour of the squares so you will have to take my word for it. Are you with me or not so far or are you going to carry on like a zinnic (a sort of camel on ecstacy) like you did with flying pigs? Shall I go on at length to show you how a mere game or a field of games could relate to the world?
From: Nam Nguyen on 16 Jan 2010 00:56 Patricia Aldoraz wrote: > On Jan 15, 6:25 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >> You said "[dorayme is quite right,] not all maths is a game" which I believe >> is wrong. My first question to you is short and was meant _for you_ to >> technically elaborate your statement. > > Shall I go on at length to show you how a mere game or a field of > games could relate to the world? Why? Where did I ever say mathematics as a field of games of the mind can't relate to the world?
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 16 Jan 2010 02:50
On Jan 16, 4:56 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > Patricia Aldoraz wrote: > > On Jan 15, 6:25 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > >> You said "[dorayme is quite right,] not all maths is a game" which I believe > >> is wrong. My first question to you is short and was meant _for you_ to > >> technically elaborate your statement. > > > Shall I go on at length to show you how a mere game or a field of > > games could relate to the world? > > Why? Where did I ever say mathematics as a field of games of the mind > can't relate to the world? I knew you would be *difficult* and so i have saved myaself typing. Earlier you said: "Which part of math is a game and which part is part of the Reality and therefore isn't a game of the mind? And why?" This suggests we need to look at how any game (in the mind or not) could relate to helping us organise reality (to use your word). We can come maths later. What do you want to do Nam, mess about on the surface of things in a mangled brain-damaged zinnicy way or are you prepared to sit here and go into details and possibly details you are not expecting? |