Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: Michael Gordge on 23 Dec 2009 17:06 On Dec 24, 12:28 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > And I took your statement to mean that you COULD prove something about > science or that there IS something that is proven in science. You said or claim that nothing in science was proven, meaning you have disqualified yourself as being able to know / determine / judge whether or not any example anyone gave was proven. You cant have your cake and eat it too. MG
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 23 Dec 2009 19:27 On Dec 23, 9:02 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > 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? > Because you can't spell, because you are troll, because you are a fuckwit.
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 23 Dec 2009 19:41 On Dec 23, 9:04 pm, Keth <kethiswo...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Are you sure 4 legs make a stable table? Try to make a table with 4 > paper legs. Is that what you would ask a host before placing your valuable laptop on her table. You would merely note it had four legs and you would have many background assumptions. You would not tremble before ridiculous possibilities. Well, a normal rational person would not. But, of course, you are playing philosophy and so you think you have to be a bit ridiculous. Why? > Most of the time your way of thinking works. And what quite is that way? Perhaps you are reading in too much. Jumping to conclusions. I simply noted that a table can be caused to be stable by having more legs sometimes. It is not a way of thinking, it is plain common sense. You do not have to throw common sense out when you do philosophy, you have been misled badly somewhere along the way. You will learn nothing much here on this usenet group unless you get very very lucky. > But there is physical > causation at play on the deeper level when you talk about physical > objects. > No matter how deep you go, you can object that it is not deep enough. ou are setting yourself up for failure. .... > > > 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. > This is pure gobbledook. Who would understand such a paragraph? > 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. > And this. > 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. And this.
From: zzbunker on 23 Dec 2009 19:46 On Dec 23, 3:04 pm, "zzbun...(a)netscape.net" <zzbun...(a)netscape.net> wrote: > 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.- Hide quoted text - Well, that's somewhat redundent, since the only thing the one knows about computers Betelguese, and the only thing the other knows about computers is Aquarius. > > - Show quoted text -
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 23 Dec 2009 19:54
On Dec 24, 1:16 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > pattern recognition is a rational process. > You really have no clue what quite this means or in what context it is appropriate to say it and what context it is inappropriate. You daft scrambled egg! > The conclusion that the pattern will continue completes the > induction, whether or not it is acted on is irrelevant. What a garbled silly thing to say. Pattern recognition is something animals do, like they walk. |