Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: PD on 21 Dec 2009 16:59 On Dec 21, 3:45 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > In article > <61a1aabd-aaaf-486e-b8fd-251f44256...(a)r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > PD <thedraperfam...(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. The theories are derived by the process of induction I described earlier. Please see my earlier note about this. From these theories, predictions are *deduced* from the models. The experimental test involves neither deduction nor induction. It is a simple comparison -- the prediction and the measurement overlap or they don't. Period. Note, however, that a favorable bit of experimental evidence does not allow you to *deduce* anything about the truth of the theory. You only have a bit of experimental support. In science, nothing is ever proven. In this sense, nothing is deductively certain, either. > 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 17:15 In article <b6be57bb-a886-40a4-849d-57ee64af2fca(a)m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Deduction has the assurance of *force of argument* and that is useful > in mathematics where axioms are taken to be objectively certain. The reasonableness of a good deductive argument has little to do with the subject it is used in. Maths has nothing much and relevantly to do with the matter. If I am testing whether my kettle always boils in under two minutes and I find that if I fill it up to the top and it takes three minutes to boil, the proposition is now known to be false that it always boil in under two minutes. And nothing but deduction is involved, no axioms, no fancy anything really. This mysterious induction is nowhere to be seen in the process... and it is not needed anyway! <g> -- dorayme
From: dorayme on 21 Dec 2009 17:24 In article <fb230dc3-aa3e-42dc-9f93-9143b8b31cdb(a)e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. I beg your pardon? The word "knowledge" is used to indicate, at the very least, success in having the truth on some matter. It is an essential requirement. There are others but the point is that this is a necessary condition. Another essential requirement is for X to know p is that X is not making a mere lucky guess. So there is a lot of objectivity built into the notion. > Knowledge that is subjective certainly exists. > Here's one: "I exist." PROVE that this is objectively true. Why do I have to do this? You seem to be confusing ontology with epistemology. -- dorayme
From: Michael Gordge on 21 Dec 2009 17:28 On Dec 22, 6:59 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > In science, nothing is ever > proven. Oh so ewe cant ever prove that about science? idiot, check your premises. > In this sense, nothing is deductively certain, either. So that's an example of something that is not deductively certain? idiot, check your premises. MG
From: dorayme on 21 Dec 2009 17:33
In article <16d16b5b-83b8-4523-82fa-9d71f9c9085b(a)v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: .... > > The theories are derived by the process of induction I described > earlier. Please see my earlier note about this. > I did see them and I commented on them. You are using the word induction to wave at roughly *whatever scientists do* and that is not really helpful. > From these theories, predictions are *deduced* from the models. > > The experimental test involves neither deduction nor induction. It is > a simple comparison -- the prediction and the measurement overlap or > they don't. Period. > No. Deduction is involved. If have the theory that my kettle will always boil in under two minutes and I see it does not in certain conditions, it is a deductive matter that the generalisation is false. > Note, however, that a favorable bit of experimental evidence does not > allow you to *deduce* anything about the truth of the theory. You only > have a bit of experimental support. In science, nothing is ever > proven. In this sense, nothing is deductively certain, either. > It is the nature of this support that I am interested in. The traditional philosophical problem of induction in philosophy has been the difficulties with the idea that more and more cases consistent with a generalization go to more and more confirm that generalisation. I am denying this. -- dorayme |