Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: dorayme on 21 Dec 2009 16:37 In article <f607d038-c38b-4b33-a8ca-c7b145b99fb1(a)n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 16, 4:00 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > In article > > <bc3b2827-08ec-43d5-98cf-391994bc3...(a)e7g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, > > .... > >... I would > > think that if something is logical then there must be some rule like > > ways about it. There seems nothing particularly clearly rule like about > > the psychological processes you describe. > > The human brain uses all sorts of rational processes to acquire > knowledge. The rigid, rule-like one you are thinking of, which is > deduction, is only one of them. > We can talk loosely about rational processes and everything is lost in the haze... But there is no form *of argument* that I can see can be called inductive that is not patently unreasonable. > Science uses induction because it is effective, Scientists use microscopes, and they would not if they were no good. What would they do if induction was no use? You make it sound like there is something, some sort of procedure that has been discovered to work and that it is clearly enough defined to be called induction. I cannot see it. The only clear idea I have of basic induction is the form i have previously mentioned and it is hopelessly flawed and does not in fact work (The Gambler's Fallacy shows this) > like. It also uses deduction, but progress in science would be awfully > slow without induction also. As far as I see, scientists use no other *form of reasoning*. They make guesses, this is not a reasoning process. Ideas simply occur to them when they survey data. They test the ideas by deducing things. There is no *induction*. When anyone does induce things, they are as likely to go wrong as right. -- dorayme
From: dorayme on 21 Dec 2009 16:45 In article <61a1aabd-aaaf-486e-b8fd-251f44256392(a)r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 17, 12:12 am, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: .... > > Probability will do for me, I am > > not wanting deductive certainty. But as far as I can see there is no > > logical form of induction that makes any conclusion more likely than > > not. > > And that's where scientific, experimental test is essential. Because > experiment DOES make one conclusion more favored than another. Where a result does favour one theory over another, it is not due to induction but to good old deduction. I am wondering if the kettle will boil in under two minutes or not. If it does it in under two mins, there is no induction involved, you can see it flatly contradicts that it takes more than two minutes. -- dorayme
From: dorayme on 21 Dec 2009 16:49 In article <2918984c-40d1-4a30-a535-e48577cf7a3a(a)g26g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 17, 12:12 am, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote:> > > > > > In article <hgbr3n$vn...(a)news.eternal-september.org>, .... > > > > > Anyway, why do you care whether inductive reasoning is or is not > > > _called_ a "logical" process? > > > > Because there is a problem if it is not. The idea of logical is the > > idea of some sort of objective necessity. > > I disagree with this. That is true for deduction, but that is only one > form of rational process for knowledge-gathering. Heck, not all > knowledge is even objective. > Knowledge is by definition objective. So I am not sure what you are saying. -- dorayme
From: PD on 21 Dec 2009 16:52 On Dec 21, 3:37 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > In article > <f607d038-c38b-4b33-a8ca-c7b145b99...(a)n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, > > > > PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On Dec 16, 4:00 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > In article > > > <bc3b2827-08ec-43d5-98cf-391994bc3...(a)e7g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, > > ... > > >... I would > > > think that if something is logical then there must be some rule like > > > ways about it. There seems nothing particularly clearly rule like about > > > the psychological processes you describe. > > > The human brain uses all sorts of rational processes to acquire > > knowledge. The rigid, rule-like one you are thinking of, which is > > deduction, is only one of them. > > We can talk loosely about rational processes and everything is lost in > the haze... But there is no form *of argument* that I can see can be > called inductive that is not patently unreasonable. > > > Science uses induction because it is effective, > > Scientists use microscopes, and they would not if they were no good. > What would they do if induction was no use? You make it sound like there > is something, some sort of procedure that has been discovered to work > and that it is clearly enough defined to be called induction. I cannot > see it. > > The only clear idea I have of basic induction is the form i have > previously mentioned and it is hopelessly flawed and does not in fact > work (The Gambler's Fallacy shows this) > > > like. It also uses deduction, but progress in science would be awfully > > slow without induction also. > > As far as I see, scientists use no other *form of reasoning*. They make > guesses, this is not a reasoning process. Ideas simply occur to them > when they survey data. They test the ideas by deducing things. There is > no *induction*. When anyone does induce things, they are as likely to go > wrong as right. > > -- > dorayme Deduction has the assurance of *force of argument* and that is useful in mathematics where axioms are taken to be objectively certain. The problem is that axioms in mathematics are not always objectively certain, and they *certainly* aren't in physics. It's always the case that there must be some *assumptions* made, and then predictions can be made to follow inexorably from them by deduction. But the only way in science to be SURE that the axioms are right is to test those predictions against experiment. Interestingly, some of our most cherished physical axioms -- like strict, time-ordered determinism -- have been found to be WRONG by this process. PD
From: PD on 21 Dec 2009 16:56
On Dec 21, 3:49 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > In article > <2918984c-40d1-4a30-a535-e48577cf7...(a)g26g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, > > > > PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 17, 12:12 am, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote:> > > > > > > In article <hgbr3n$vn...(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > ... > > > > > Anyway, why do you care whether inductive reasoning is or is not > > > > _called_ a "logical" process? > > > > Because there is a problem if it is not. The idea of logical is the > > > idea of some sort of objective necessity. > > > I disagree with this. That is true for deduction, but that is only one > > form of rational process for knowledge-gathering. Heck, not all > > knowledge is even objective. > > Knowledge is by definition objective. So I am not sure what you are > saying. Don't be ridiculous. Knowledge that is subjective certainly exists. Here's one: "I exist." PROVE that this is objectively true. |