Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: PD on 23 Dec 2009 15:20 On Dec 23, 12:19 pm, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Dec 23, 10:02 am, Shrikeback <shrikeb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Dec 15, 6:51 pm, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > > > Inductive reasoning is the weakest kind of argument in the light of > > > Deductive Reasoning. However, we must look to its utility: for one, it > > > keeps Deductive Reasoning honest, or as honest as it can be. > > > > One cannot exist without the other. > > > There is a form of inductive reasoning that is formal > > and as strong as any other: > > > Statement S(1) is true. > > Statement S(n) implies Statement S(n+1). > > Therefore, S(n) is true for all n. > > This is a deductive argument, there seems to be continued confusion > about the difference between inductive reasoning and mathematical > induction. Precisely.
From: PD on 23 Dec 2009 15:19 On Dec 23, 2:15 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > In article > <4a506dbb-ff8b-43b2-af0c-4902f2dc7...(a)m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, > > > > PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > 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. > > This is not an answer that lays out evidence that I don't know what > deduction is. That is the first point. The evidence was produced by you in claiming that an experimental observation of a watched pot was a deduction. It's not. It's a comparison of a prediction with experimental data. If you'd like to get back to your thesis to discuss that, I'd prefer that to bashing you about your rather weak grasp of philosophical notions and your defensiveness about it. > > The second is that you are failing to distinguish, probably because you > are unaware of it, the deductive argument itself from the psychological > processes of thinking one through. One is about something somewhat > abstract. All the logic books are concerned with this something. And > about this something, I have said that the defining feature is that the > conclusion cannot be false if the premises are true. But, this, > according to you, is not good enough to qualify that I understand what > deduction is. > > -- > dorayme
From: John Stafford on 23 Dec 2009 15:46 In article <doraymeRidThis-C0B1D9.07153124122009(a)news.albasani.net>, dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > The second is that you are failing to distinguish, probably because you > are unaware of it, the deductive argument itself from the psychological > processes of thinking one through. One is about something somewhat > abstract. All the logic books are concerned with this something. And > about this something, I have said that the defining feature is that the > conclusion cannot be false if the premises are true. But, this, > according to you, is not good enough to qualify that I understand what > deduction is. Technically, deduction concerns the construction of an argument (to be valid or invalid) _and_ whether it is sound or unsound. Your observation concerns the later in which the argument is sound or not. When the premises are correct in a simple deductive argument, then the argument is sound. When you make a claim that the conclusion must be true in this case, then you leave deductive reasoning and enter into another kind of reasoning or logic. All men are mortal Socrates is a man Socrates is mortal Is that a valid deductive argument? Well, we can look to temporal logical requisites. Men are mortal (now). Socrates is dead. It is not a sound argument unless we loosen up a bit and agree to conventions, however strict logic includes temporal logic which takes us from deduction to the natural world.
From: zzbunker on 23 Dec 2009 15:04 On Dec 23, 1:19 pm, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Dec 23, 10:02 am, Shrikeback <shrikeb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Dec 15, 6:51 pm, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > > > Inductive reasoning is the weakest kind of argument in the light of > > > Deductive Reasoning. However, we must look to its utility: for one, it > > > keeps Deductive Reasoning honest, or as honest as it can be. > > > > One cannot exist without the other. > > > There is a form of inductive reasoning that is formal > > and as strong as any other: > > > Statement S(1) is true. > > Statement S(n) implies Statement S(n+1). > > Therefore, S(n) is true for all n. > > This is a deductive argument, there seems to be continued confusion > about the difference between inductive reasoning and mathematical > induction. Well, that's known, but it's also why Turing discovered Turing Machines, rather than Newton. And it's also why today's Engineers discovered Holograms, Desktop Publishing, Bue Ray, HDTV, Home Broadband, Self-Assembling Robots, Multiplexed Fiber Optics, Atomic Clock Wristwatches, and Post 1700 Optical Computers, rather than Physicists or Mathematicians.
From: Michael Gordge on 23 Dec 2009 16:04
On Dec 22, 6:52 am, PD <thedraperfam...(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. Only when objects are being counted. "Mommy mommy 1+1=2" shouts PD "What do you mean PD" Mommy replies Huh? Asks PD "What do you mean by 1+1=2?" Asks mommy > The > problem is that axioms in mathematics are not always objectively > certain, and they *certainly* aren't in physics. Oh so you are uncertain as to whether or not there are any axiomatic certainties in physics? idiot. MG |