Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 19 Dec 2009 18:18 On Dec 20, 2:02 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > On Dec 18, 5:12 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On Dec 19, 12:49 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > > > > If a fair coin is flipped, logic cannot demonstrate that it will end > > > up as tails even though if it has ended up as tails in the previous > > > 200 flips. However, in this case I would bet on tails on the basis > > > that the coin may not be fair. That is I would be use induction to > > > make a pragmatic rather than a logical choice. > > > If you had merely said that you would bet on the coin coming up > > tails again if it had always come up tails on countless occasions > > in the past, then no one would dispute your reasonableness. > > But you go on to say you use induction as if this is some sort of > > technique. And it is here where the real disagreements start. > > Induction is either not an argument form, or if it is, > > it is a manifestly inadequate one. > > So let us accept that it is "a manifestly inadequate " argument. Then > maybe we can go on to decide by which criteria it is assessed as being > inadequate. An argument *form* can be seen to be a bad one if one can easily think of fleshing it out with instances that are obviously bad reasoning. The main criterion is as simple as that.
From: dorayme on 19 Dec 2009 23:17 In article <2c1c5174-b1e4-4103-9e5e-a2086d7ff7d2(a)g4g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldoraz(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 19, 2:05 pm, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > On Dec 18, 6:27 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > On Dec 19, 10:43 am, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > Both the Gambler's Fallacy and it's reverse are post hoc fallacies. > > > > > What exactly does this mean? It is a fallacy before, during and after > > > the foolish gambler loses all his money thinking that because he has > > > lost so many times, he has a greater chance of winning the next time. > > > > You should be able to look it up on the internet but basically it's > > the false assumption a prior event effects the next event. > > > > The Gambler's Fallacy is thinking that your chances of heads coming up > increases the more that tails have come up in your previous losing > bets on heads. The usual context for uttering the expression "Post hoc > ergo propter hoc" - perhaps this is what you have in mind - is where > someone thinks that something that happens after another thing is > therefore caused by this other thing. Yes! Who knows what goes on in gamblers' minds. Perhaps they think there is some sort of angel watching the tosses and if the penny comes up tails qute a few times in a row and a bloke is losing badly, it is only fair that it should *intervene and cause* the penny to come up heads in his lifetime so he can get his dough back! <g> -- dorayme
From: Michael Gordge on 20 Dec 2009 01:24 On Dec 18, 2:03 pm, Tim <tbees...(a)aci.on.ca> wrote: > Poor stupid you, inductive and deductive were in use before Kant. Shrug, boring yawn, ewe Kantian idiot, ewe still haven't explained how preceeding reason with the adjective changes anything at all about the meaning of reason. MG > Now, > back to the point, in your deluded world inductive and deductive > reasoning must be same thing, yes or no, sheep shagger? My world doesn't change the simple fact that preceeding reason with an adjective changes nothing about the meaning of reason. MG
From: Michael Gordge on 20 Dec 2009 01:44 On Dec 18, 6:36 am, "Daniel T." <danie...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > By "arbitrary" I mean, cannot be found true through any deductive or > inductive argument. Statements claimed / treated as fact in the total absense of any sensory evidence are the arbitrary. MG
From: Zinnic on 20 Dec 2009 08:34
On Dec 19, 5:18 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 20, 2:02 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 18, 5:12 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > On Dec 19, 12:49 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > > > > > If a fair coin is flipped, logic cannot demonstrate that it will end > > > > up as tails even though if it has ended up as tails in the previous > > > > 200 flips. However, in this case I would bet on tails on the basis > > > > that the coin may not be fair. That is I would be use induction to > > > > make a pragmatic rather than a logical choice. > > > > If you had merely said that you would bet on the coin coming up > > > tails again if it had always come up tails on countless occasions > > > in the past, then no one would dispute your reasonableness. > > > But you go on to say you use induction as if this is some sort of > > > technique. And it is here where the real disagreements start. > > > Induction is either not an argument form, or if it is, > > > it is a manifestly inadequate one. > > > So let us accept that it is "a manifestly inadequate " argument. Then > > maybe we can go on to decide by which criteria it is assessed as being > > inadequate. > > An argument *form* can be seen to be a bad one if one can easily think > of fleshing it out with instances that are obviously bad reasoning. > The main criterion is as simple as that.- Hide quoted text - > An increasing number of pebbles at a location makes a pile. An increasing number of identical outcomes makes for inductions adequate for reasonable conclusions. Instances of invalid inductions (e.g. those based on few outcomes) do not invalidate the 'piles' of inductive arguments that take form with increasing numbers. |