Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 23 Dec 2009 04:18 On Dec 23, 7:33 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > On Dec 23, 4:59 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > No, it doesn't as ewe don't know. It means different things in > > different contexts. > > What? are ewe drunk? As I thought, you have no idea at all about context and any details about anything. You are just a grunting ape, calling out other apes like Turtoni and Stafford with your grunts.
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 23 Dec 2009 04:35 On Dec 23, 7:45 pm, Keth <kethiswo...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Dec 23, 8:51 am, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > 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. > > 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. > You do, do you? Try getting out in a while! It is quite amazing how naive and unworldly some of you guys are! No, it is not common knowledge to talk or think like this. If one table has 4 legs and is sitting firm and another has only one left and is finely balanced by a trickster, the 4 legs on the one is the cause of its stability. It is the more stable. Stability can be cached in counterfactual terms. That you can analyse this further in terms of forces does not make the thing you are analysing false. There is no need to display your great scientific familiarities. If a lampost is knocked down by a car, the car causes the lampost to fall over. That you can spout all the finer details does not make it false. It does not become false that the car driving into the post is the cause... > > > 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? What are you meaning by "as if they are causation during the calculation process". If you are talking about deductive arguments themselves, you are talking nonsense, they are timeless in the main. If you are talking about humans doing things and calculating things, then their serial actions do form a causal chain. You are not being clear and confusing logical argument with human processing.
From: Michael Gordge on 23 Dec 2009 04:46 On Dec 23, 6:18 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > As I thought, you have no idea at all about context and any details > about anything. When ewe say "subjective means different things" what meaning are ewe using for subjective, i.e. what is it that means different things? MG
From: Keth on 23 Dec 2009 05:04 On Dec 23, 10:35 am, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 23, 7:45 pm, Keth <kethiswo...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Dec 23, 8:51 am, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > 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. > > > 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. > > You do, do you? Try getting out in a while! It is quite amazing how > naive and unworldly some of you guys are! No, it is not common > knowledge to talk or think like this. > > If one table has 4 legs and is sitting firm and another has only one > left and is finely balanced by a trickster, the 4 legs on the one is > the cause of its stability. It is the more stable. Stability can be > cached in counterfactual terms. That you can analyse this further in > terms of forces does not make the thing you are analysing false. There > is no need to display your great scientific familiarities. If a > lampost is knocked down by a car, the car causes the lampost to fall > over. That you can spout all the finer details does not make it false. > It does not become false that the car driving into the post is the > cause... Are you sure 4 legs make a stable table? Try to make a table with 4 paper legs. Why is it not stable? Shouldnt it work with your analysis? As I discussed with a gentleman a few posts earlier, analysis on category terms relate to objects must be verified with analysis on physical terms at the end. The reason why paper legs do not make a stable table is because of the detail physical analysis I mentioned. Most of the time your way of thinking works. But there is physical causation at play on the deeper level when you talk about physical objects. > > > > 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? > > What are you meaning by "as if they are causation during the > calculation process". > > If you are talking about deductive arguments themselves, you are > talking nonsense, they are timeless in the main. If you are talking > about humans doing things and calculating things, then their serial > actions do form a causal chain. You are not being clear and confusing > logical argument with human processing. Incorrect. Deductive method can be used in both time and timeless domain. Physicists normally use deductive method to analyze processes in the time domain. The rules they rely upon are mostly causation in the time domain. Though at times analysis of equilibrium does not involve time. Social theorists do analysis on both time and timeless domain. In time domain, the social theorists often deal with causation of human cognition which is based on timed cognitive process of mankind. In timeless domain, social theorists often conduct logical, philosophical or metaphysical discussions in which time is often not the essence. They use logical transformations we discussed earlier and other methods.
From: Michael Gordge on 23 Dec 2009 05:06
On Dec 23, 6:15 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 23, 6:52 pm, Monsieur Turtoni <turt...(a)fastmail.net> wrote: > > > Patricia Aldoraz wrote: > > > (snip) > > "I despise" > > (snip) > > > Considering the fact that you appear to be the Bulldyke of Usenet it's > > no wonder! > > See how a few insults brings cockroaches like you out? Plus, your > remark is not even close to sensible. If you are not quoting someone, > you are completely lost, aren't you? So "subjective has different meanings" is something you have invented all by yourself? liar, its Kantian diatribe through and through. Why dont ewe prove that ewe are not lost and explain how many different meanings subjective has? And what do you mean by subjective when you claim "subjective has different meanings"? MG |