Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: dorayme on 23 Dec 2009 16:09 In article <0d1cbbb4-45c5-47e1-843d-a95205a49e62(a)c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 22, 4:15 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: .... > > The word "objective" is ambiguous and depends very much on context. > > So "objective" is subjective? > A word in the language is neither subjective nor objective > How about "objective" meaning "independently verifiable by independent > investigators"? > It can sometimes be used in this way. But not always. > So, let's see. Only with some reluctance! You are about to run off like a hare with something when it is not *always* or even *generally* used this way. > The statement "I exist" -- is that a statement about my > own existence that is independently verifiable by independent > investigators? > Actually it is, but so what? > > > > "Ice cream tastes nice" may be fairly said to be a subjective statement > > because it is only true for some people and not for others. > > > > "I exist" is not subjective in this sense. It is true for everyone who > > thinks or says it. > > > > If someone knows something, then that something is something true. That > > is a simple consequence of how we use words. You seem to be confusing > > belief with knowledge. > > So the fact that I exist is a belief and is not knowledge? > No, you are not distinguishing between a fact about the world (that you exist) and a fact about your mind (that you believe something). The idea of subjective and objective need to be understood in various contexts. I am sorry philosophy is not simple, I did not make this world. Whether something is nice or not is a subjective matter because it depends on if it is thought nice. Whether you exist or not does not depend on what you think in particular, nor even much if you think at all. > > > > > It is also certainly true that even though my cousin is incapable of > > > communication or movement, he loves me. This is a fact of which I'm > > > certain. There is nothing objective about it. > > > > Are you sure? What does this quite mean? That others cannot check up on > > you and your relationship to confirm it? > > Confirm that my immobile and uncommunicative cousin loves me? Perhaps > you can suggest a method. > I don't know the full story, so how can I? If, say, your brother was once not immobile or uncommunicative, then facts from the past might give clues. He may have shown, as many quite young children can show, that they have "a good heart". And an affection for you. And if this avenue is not possible, there may be other ways. If you look at some of the ways animal behaviour scientists investigate their subjects, you might be very surprised and pleased to see how subtle and clever their experiments are. Ditto, baby investigations. (btw, you might be interested to see the brilliant 2007 film "Le scaphandre et le papillon") .... > You just said that logic is a way of demonstrating by force of > necessity that something is true. I did? Perhaps you are jumping to conclusions about what I think. I am proceeding slowly and patiently and you are - enthusiasm is no crime - anxious to jump forward quickly. With the problem of induction, one must be patient and take things slowly and not exaggerate anything. If an argument is a good one, then it must have some force, some weight, the premises must tend to force (if not actually completely force) the conclusion. I have given examples. I have even given a probability example. Scientists are all the time making good arguments for their conclusions and they are not deductive arguments. None of this have I disputed. But I have yet to see any inductive argument that has the least force or weight. Naturally, if you are going to wave your hand and say inductive arguments are whatever is common to all good scientific arguments, then all interest is drained from the problem we started with. The interesting question is are there common forms to good scientific arguments? What exactly are they? Is the word "induction" an empty historical shell of a word and no longer the least bit useful (my own view tends to this). > The claim is "I exist". If this is a logical statement, A claim like this is neither logical nor illogical, it is just a claim. What makes something logical is its relation to evidence. > then there > should -- by YOUR claim, not mine -- that there is a compelling > argument by which that is a necessary conclusion. I'm asking you to > back up your claim by demonstration. > You are misunderstanding things, I never made any such claim and I would not confuse a statement as being necessary in itself with it being entailed by premises. You are rushing and you need to be more patient. -- dorayme
From: dorayme on 23 Dec 2009 16:13 In article <7fd74634-bdb5-4f6b-8da9-82a88b792696(a)j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 22, 5:26 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: .... > > 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. > Fancy thinking that you will get the least sense from this poster! It reflects poorly on your judgement. This idiot knows absolutely nothing and is here to merely troll about, use foul language, say "ewe" and drop Kant's good name. -- dorayme
From: PD on 23 Dec 2009 16:21 On Dec 23, 3:04 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > 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. Give me an example of an axiomatic certainty in physics.
From: dorayme on 23 Dec 2009 16:38 In article <27c2e070-ed4e-4923-8d15-d29736e6dc20(a)d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: .... > > > 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. > Ah, yes, I meant to address this second point of yours and forgot completely! First I did not *produce* what you say I produced. But never mind. Let me see if the point can be cleared up. When wondering if my kettle always boils in under two minutes, there is a deductive argument in the air that goes: 'This kettle takes more than two minutes to boil sometimes' therefore 'This kettle does not always boil in under two minutes' Now if I fill the kettle up to the brim and it takes more than two minutes to boil then, by the above deductive argument, I can see that the general proposition 'This kettle always boils in under two minutes' is false. It should be obviously fasle, but it could be expressed as based on the deductive argument: 'This kettle does not always boil in under two minutes' therefore '"This kettle always boil in under two minutes" is false' The use of deduction by scientists in testing is almost unnoticed by the inexperienced. But it is used constantly in drawing out consequences from theories to be tested. > 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. > Except that I have not really proposed a thesis here yet... I am waiting till all the elementary stuff is out of the way. Who do you think I am? John Jones the thesis machine? <g> If you would really prefer to discuss philosophy, don't make personal remarks in the first place unless they are very well justified. It was the height of impertinence to suggest I don't understand deduction., They don't call me Donald Deduction around here for nothing you know! <g> -- dorayme
From: Michael Gordge on 23 Dec 2009 17:03
On Dec 24, 6:21 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Give me an example of an axiomatic certainty in physics. Dunking your head into a bucket of hydrachloric acid would be a real dopey idea. You cant survive by breathing water. Explorers of 'the vacuum of outer space' need to be encased in a specially designed suit or spaceship. The coronor would have a hell of a mess to clean up if you jumped from a plane at 20,000 feet without a parachute and landed on the tarmac. MG |