Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 23 Dec 2009 19:58 On Dec 24, 3:46 am, Monsieur Turtoni <turt...(a)fastmail.net> wrote: > > The rallying Queen Baboon Patricia Aldoraz Basketweaved thus: > > > 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? > > Spot the irony.. What I spot is your brainless contributions, your complete lack of any real discussion of issues (save to quote massive amounts of stuff).
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 23 Dec 2009 20:02 On Dec 24, 5:02 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 not the inductive reasoning being talked about in the traditional problem of philosophy.
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 23 Dec 2009 20:07 On Dec 24, 7:21 am, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > Which of the 'different meanings' are ewe using for subjective when > ewe say subjective has different meanings? > None.
From: chazwin on 23 Dec 2009 20:20 On Dec 13, 3:39 am, Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 12, 6:10 pm, Immortalista <extro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On Dec 12, 6:08 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > > > > On 12/12/09 8:01 PM, Immortalista wrote: > > > > > What is the justification for either: > > > > There isn't any. > > > The Problem of the Criterion > > > [blah blah blah] > > Immortalist is an automated clipping service. It posts a long > article, then some guy replies, and 2 minutes later, a lengthy > counterresponse that has nothing to do with the post it's > replying to. Not a reply a human could or would have typed > in that time. > > At least it's a roughly on-topic clipping service, and not a > spambot. > > Marshall This clipping service would not necessarily be a problem is he actually understood the implications of some of his postings. Sometimes people unwittingly respond to him, and it is to those people that I respond because I have pretty much given up on him.
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 23 Dec 2009 20:24
On Dec 24, 7:46 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.net> wrote: > In article <doraymeRidThis-C0B1D9.07153124122...(a)news.albasani.net>, > > dorayme <doraymeRidT...(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. What is this supposed to mean. A deductive argument is simply one where the premises entail the conclusion, where the conclusion cannot be false if the premises are true. Why start throwing up these verbal clouds around it? > 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. > What on earth are you talking about? Where is this need for induction and what is this induction about which you speak. Are you trying to say something clever like perhaps: When a human actually uses a deductive argument, he looks at the first premise, then he looks at the second and so on. He has to *remember* what the premises are. So when he gets to the conclusion and it appears unavoidable, he is assuming that it is unavoidable on the premises he has just witnessed. But perhaps he is *misremembering*. He comforts himself by the thought that he has not misremembered short argument premises in the past and he is probably not misremembering on this occasion... and perhaps this is a reliance on so called inductive reasoning. I don't know, I am trying to help you here, it is your baby. Before you write, try to think slowly and carefully and understand what you are really saying. > 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. Ah, I see you are just simply confused. In All men are mortal Socrates is a man Socrates is mortal these are traditionally thought to be timeless statements. That is, one simply assumes that 'Socrates is a man' just means to refer to the Socrates that lived at such and such a time. In other words we are meant to understand a time stamp inside the statements, or a n expansion of the description of 'Socrates'. |