Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: dorayme on 22 Dec 2009 16:45 In article <48527643-dddf-4bd9-bc2c-ffdb123a34cb(a)o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: > It seems to me you don't really know what deduction and induction > mean. Does it now, and what am I missing from an understanding of deduction itself that you are *not* missing? Let us just concentrate on this particular thing first and we we will move to induction again later. What is your evidence that I do not understand what *deduction* is? I wait to learn from you. Deduction, not any other thing... -- dorayme
From: Keth on 23 Dec 2009 10:13 On Dec 23, 3:31 pm, jbriggs444 <jbriggs...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 22, 10:43 pm, Keth <kethiswo...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > logics. We can safely use deduction to draw conclusion. > > > > > > > Some causations are of high but less than 100 percent certainty.. For > > > > > > example, most physical laws (except speed of light, etc) are near > > > > > > perfect but with deviations, thus we can use deduction to estimate the > > > > > > result, and it will not be 100 percent accurate. > > > > > > > Cognitive causations are even lower certainty. Thus it is even less > > > > > > certain when we apply deduction method. > > > > > > > As to induction, it is the first step in finding causation. It is the > > > > > > start before we can use deduction method. > > > > > > I would only like to add that it is our imaginations that induce a > > > > > causation. However I don't believe induction can be confined to causal > > > > > relationships, there are many types of relationships as Aristotle > > > > > outlined. > > > > > I thought if B "always" follows A (or A-> B) then A->B is considered a > > > > causation. I do not agree that it is our imagination. > > > > Who told you that fairy tale? > > > > Correlation and causation are not the same thing. Not even if they > > > happen to be observed in some particular order. Not even if the > > > correlation is remarkable. > > > There's a reason for randomly selected samples, double blind trials > > > and confidence testing. > > > Causation has strict order, correlation does not. In causation > > timing is critical. If B always "follows" A with a observable time > > delay, then it is a strong candidate of causation. > > You've carefully avoided the opportunity to clarify what relationships > you consider to be causal. > > A causes B > B causes A > x causes A and B. > > Which of these are you talking about? I am referring to the general notion of causation, where we have two entities, call it A and B. If B always follows A, then it is a strong candidate for causation A->B. Then we investigate the underlying mechanism and see if we can find the reason for this causation. Sometimes even if we can't find the mechanism, we still define it as causation if we have reason to believe the existence of an underlying mechanism. For example, we do not know the exact nature of gravity, but we think it exists and it is the cause for falling body anyway. There are various forms of this notation: 1. A causes B (direct causation) 2. A causes x, x causes B (indirect causation) 3. x causes A and B (correlation between A and B) ..... > [There's plenty of additional complexity available -- these scenarios > are a gross over-simplification of reality. For instance, the court > system > has to define "proximate cause" or "last clear chance" on partial > evidence when reality includes the "butterfly effect"] I didn't get a chance to discuss causation of human domain in my previous post. Human created many systems that have rules by themselves, including law, economics, etc. In these institutional systems, the rules and cognition together constitute the causation. > > In correlation, A and B often appear together, but B does not > > always follow A. Sometimes A follows B, sometimes B follows A, > > sometimes they appear concurrently. > > You have not come right out and said what you mean: > > "If A causes B then A must precede B in chronological order" > > If A and B merely have a "causal relationship" then no such ordering > requirement exists. > > For me, the key thing that must exist for a "causal relationship" is a > mechanism. Like you, I consider that a statistically significant > experimental result indicates that a causal mechanism exists with high > likelihood. But > that doesn't tell us what the mechanism is. > > One reason we have controlled experiments is to narrow the search for > a mechanism. > > Is it the penicillin that cures a sore throat? > Is it the gelatin capsule? > Is it the placebo effect? > Is it the water you drink when swallowing the pill? > Would it have gone away anyway? > Does it operate by killing the pain sensors in the throat? > Does it operate by deactivating the pain centers in the brain? > Does it operate by reducing the inflamation? > Does it operate by eradicating the infection? > Does it operate by allowing the body to eradicate the infection? > Does it operate by rendering the bacterial waste products harmless? > Is there a particular metabolic pathway that it disrupts? > Is there a particular active region on the penicillin molecule that > accomplishes this? > What forms of bacterial immunity render this ineffective? > Can we mitigate such immunities? > > I assume that most of this is well settled medicine. But somebody had > to do the tests to learn the answers. And control them so as to focus > on one thing at a time. I thought about these things yesterday but decided to leave the aspect of underlying mechanism out unless someone asks about it. As I mentioned we do not always find the underlying mechanism, but if we have strong faith or evidence that there IS an underlying mechanism, then we still treat it as a causation. > > > > I personal believe that induction that is not based on solid causation > > > > cannot produce reliable conclusion. > > Induction will produce a statistically significant conclusion at the > 99% confidence level about 1% of the time. Chart 10 prospective > treatments > against 10 ailments and chances are good that you'll get a > statistically > significant result by dumb luck (one that won't be reproducible -- so > you're > a chump if you try to publish before verifying). There was a typo here. I meant to say I personal believe that deduction that is not based on solid causation cannot produce reliable conclusion. > > > I think I agree with what I think you're trying to say, but I'd still > > > like you to say it correctly. It's something like "I believe that the > > > Universe is weird but not that it is malicious", yes? > > > Thats why we have dialog to clarify potential confusions. > > Ummm. Then why didn't you take the opportunity to clarify this > one? Because it takes further discussion to get into more details. I reserve some material for further discussion (or keep them with me).
From: PD on 23 Dec 2009 10:20 On Dec 22, 3:45 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > In article > <48527643-dddf-4bd9-bc2c-ffdb123a3...(a)o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, > > PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > It seems to me you don't really know what deduction and induction > > mean. > > Does it now, and what am I missing from an understanding of deduction > itself that you are *not* missing? > > Let us just concentrate on this particular thing first and we we will > move to induction again later. What is your evidence that I do not > understand what *deduction* is? I wait to learn from you. Deduction, not > any other thing... Deduction is a process of thinking that produces conclusions from assumed premises. No other information other than what is in the premises is required for deduction. Comparison of a theory with experimental data is not a process of deduction. It is a simple comparison to see if the statement *deduced* from certain theoretical premises matches what is actually observed in nature.
From: PD on 23 Dec 2009 10:28 On Dec 22, 5:26 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > On Dec 23, 12:09 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > What models in science do you take to be certain? > > You need to check your premises, why are you asking me that question > when you have said there is nothing you can prove about science? You > have judged yourself as incapable of validating / proving anything > about science. > > Its your idea that nothing in science is ever proven, therefore you > cant ever prove that about science, in other words its idiotic > arbitrary Kantian diatribe. And I took your statement to mean that you COULD prove something about science or that there IS something that is proven in science. When I asked you to back that statement up, you demurred. Seems to me that you assent without actually saying so. > > MG
From: M Purcell on 23 Dec 2009 10:34
On Dec 23, 6:46 am, Keth <kethiswo...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Dec 23, 9:00 am, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > On Dec 23, 12:45 am, Keth <kethiswo...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Four legs are not the cause of the stableness of table, the real > > > cause is the physical force corresponding to the structure of the > > > table. When one pushes the table, a force is generated towards the > > > other direction, which generates a counter-force by the legs on the > > > other side. All these forces take time to reach equilibrium. > > > > Use flexible material for the legs and we can actually observe the > > > time it takes to reach the equilibrium. With legs of rigid material, > > > the forces reach equilibrium almost instantly. > > > > The underlying causation is force. And the action of force takes > > > time. Force A -> effect B is a time delayed causation. I thought this > > > is common knowledge. > > > I'm not sure the definition of force as the rate of change of momentum > > with respect to time is common knowledge. > > At least it should be a common knowledge (or required knowledge) to > those who wants to discuss causation. I tend to think that we often > ignore these causations in our discussion of knowledge system. Some of > these things are not known to Aristotle or Kant, so they did not > include them in their writings. But people in modern society should. Expecting everybody to have the same knowledge is unrealistic. We seem to ignore lots of relationships but I agree knowledge is generally applied in order to make predictions. However time is intrensic to force, there are underlying causations of force, and the time factor is effectively negated in static mechanics. > > > > > One exception to the rule is logical causation and mathematical > > > > > causation, > > > > There is no such thing, you have invented these terms. > > > > > > which does not involve time. Logical and mathematical > > > > > causation are formative translations. For example, 2+2=4 and AUB=BUA > > > > > do not involve time. Strictly speaking these are not causation since > > > > > there is no time delay. > > > > > This is a confusion of thought. They are piling up. > > > > Logical and mathematical transformations are often used in deduction > > > method as if they are causation during the calculation process. Where > > > is the confusion? > > > I'm curious as to what transformations you are refering to. Do you > > mean conditionals? > > I am referring to the logical and mathematical equations. For example > 2+2=4 or AUB=BUA. These equations transform one form to another. > Though they start out as pure concepts, they have empirical > implications. For example 2+2 = 4 can be simulated with assembling two > groups of 2 people together, and we get 4 people. By doing so, we > verify that the condition "two adds two" will generate the result > "four" in a time domain. > > When not simulating these equations (in a time domain causal form), > the logical and mathematics transformations stand true on themselves > in timeless domain. This is why they are a priori knowledge. You seem to be refering to commutativity. All mathematical equations are not transformations, addition is an operation rather than a condition, and I fail to see how something in a "timeless domain" will generate a result in a "time domain". |