Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: Michael Gordge on 23 Dec 2009 05:02 On Dec 23, 9:37 am, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > You cannot say anything particularly > useful in discussion so you turn to insults. Idiot, insults are a self inflicted head bashing. Ewe haven't explained how many different meanings subjective has and ewe have explained what meaning ewe are using for subjective when ewe claim it has different meanings, why is that? MG
From: Michael Gordge on 23 Dec 2009 05:58 On Dec 23, 11:47 am, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > You, Stafford, never could get what > any traditional philosophical problems were about. Why dont ewe have a crack at solving the problem ewe have created for yourself by claiming subjective means different things, how many? what do ewe mean by subjective when you say it means different things? Wotsamatter, catgotchatongue? MG
From: M Purcell on 23 Dec 2009 09:00 On Dec 23, 12:45 am, 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. I'm not sure the definition of force as the rate of change of momentum with respect to time is common knowledge. > > > 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?
From: Zinnic on 23 Dec 2009 09:16 On Dec 22, 4:48 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > In article > <0d8d5bc2-e1d3-4c3d-a9b6-7cd85bc80...(a)a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On Dec 21, 4:33 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > In article > > > <16d16b5b-83b8-4523-82fa-9d71f9c90...(a)v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, PD > > > <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: Snip, snip for brevity > dorayme- > >This induction is a description of a psychological step. It is like > saying to a kid, look at this and this and this and this and now, "What > is common to these things". That is just an exhortation to come up with > ideas. If they come up with 20 different ones, they have different > "inductions"? The different kids induce different things. There is no > *logical reasoning* in this stage. It is mere exercise of our pattern > recognition abilities, our creativity is involved. Thus, " 'mere' exercise" of pattern recognition is a pre-requisite for induction. You take refuge in "creativity" in order to obscure the fact that pattern recognition is a rational process. > The interesting questions are what is to be done with these ideas. Is > this also part of so called induction? The conclusion that the pattern will continue completes the induction, whether or not it is acted on is irrelevant.
From: jbriggs444 on 23 Dec 2009 09:31
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? [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"] > 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 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). > > 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? |