Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 22 Dec 2009 19:47 On Dec 23, 1:47 am, jbriggs444 <jbriggs...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 22, 12:28 am, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On Dec 22, 12:42 pm, tadchem <tadc...(a)comcast.net> wrote:> On Dec 12, 9:01 pm, Immortalista <extro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > [snip] > > > Those conclusions can only become "knowledge" when they can by > > > repeatibly and independently verified, without exceptions, through > > > empirical observations, by non-dollaborating observers. > > > This is either saying nothing at all or it is almost certainly wrong. > > For a set of theories to be > > known to be true, they must be true, no matter how many observations > > 'confirm' them. Using the word verified kind of gives the game away or > > is simply circular. > > If a theory is true, it is also true no matter how many observations > refute it. > No, this is quite wrong. If an observation refutes a theory, it cannot be true. > But scientists don't get to cheat and look for answers in the back of > the book. They aren't allowed to check whether a theory is true > before deciding whether it's worthwhile to try confirming or refuting > it. Or whether they can legitimately call it "known". > I am not sure why you are saying this, there is nothing here I disagree greatly with? > If we accept your notion of knowledge as incorporating certainty I have a notion of knowledge that I have revealed here? If I have, I can assure you it does not include the idea that we need to be 100% certain on the basis of evidence. > > Gotta use observation to discover some things. And observation is > unreliable. Observations are not simply *unreliable*. Some are, some are notl.
From: John Stafford on 22 Dec 2009 20:37 In article <5c0b5385-816a-4817-b2e0-16a851c8a363(a)y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, M Purcell <sacscale1(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Dec 22, 4:24�pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Dec 22, 11:54�pm, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > I am well aware of the difference between probability and statistics > > > and realize you don't know what you are talking about. Look it up for > > > yourself. > > > > No, you don't know this at all and here you are refusing to answer a > > polite question. I gave you a detailed example of a probability > > argument. I asked you for your version of a typical statistical > > argument (that, presumably cannot be analysed in terms of a > > probability argument) and what do you do, you show your true colours > > and get insulting. In a discussion about induction and deduction, the > > details matter. Your vague hand waving will get you nowohre, but > > presumably it will impress the basketweavers around here and various > > other thugs and sexists mugs. > > Presumably you now realize probability is used in statistics. When P.A. puts forward "hand waving" or "basket weaving" or "gambler's fallacy" it indicates that sheesh is helplessly "hand waving", out of league, under water. Time to let the thread die.
From: M Purcell on 22 Dec 2009 20:57 On Dec 22, 5:37 pm, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > In article > <5c0b5385-816a-4817-b2e0-16a851c8a...(a)y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 22, 4:24 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > On Dec 22, 11:54 pm, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > I am well aware of the difference between probability and statistics > > > > and realize you don't know what you are talking about. Look it up for > > > > yourself. > > > > No, you don't know this at all and here you are refusing to answer a > > > polite question. I gave you a detailed example of a probability > > > argument. I asked you for your version of a typical statistical > > > argument (that, presumably cannot be analysed in terms of a > > > probability argument) and what do you do, you show your true colours > > > and get insulting. In a discussion about induction and deduction, the > > > details matter. Your vague hand waving will get you nowohre, but > > > presumably it will impress the basketweavers around here and various > > > other thugs and sexists mugs. > > > Presumably you now realize probability is used in statistics. > > When P.A. puts forward "hand waving" or "basket weaving" or "gambler's > fallacy" it indicates that sheesh is helplessly "hand waving", out of > league, under water. > > Time to let the thread die. I don't know about that, the contributions from sci.physics are interesting. And the validity of statistics would be a good topic but I didn't feel like explaining the basics to P.A.
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 23 Dec 2009 02:51 On Dec 23, 2:43 pm, Keth <kethiswo...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Causation has strict order, Not really, or not that it is so obvious. A set of table legs can cause a table to be very stable, but they do not somehow act in prior time. > 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.
From: Monsieur Turtoni on 23 Dec 2009 02:52
Patricia Aldoraz wrote: (snip) "I despise" (snip) Considering the fact that you appear to be the Bulldyke of Usenet it's no wonder! |