Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: Zinnic on 24 Dec 2009 00:44 On Dec 23, 1:51 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. The table legs per se do not cause stability. That is sloppy thinking!. The prior organization of the legs causes the table to be stable. Once organized, the legs simply maintain the stability. A square table with two legs on one side is not stable. Does the presence of two legs or the lack of two legs 'cause' the table's instability. Try chewing philosophically on that instead of belittling and foul- mouthing other posters! Maybe then you will influence people and make friends. > > One exception to the rule is logical causation and mathematical > > causation, > > There is no such thing, you have invented these terms. Tch, Tch. There you go again ! > > 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. See above.
From: Monsieur Turtoni on 24 Dec 2009 00:47 > Fat old hairy hag Patricia Aldoraz wrote: > What I spot is your brainless contributions, Your sweaty armpits count for exactly what? > your complete lack of any real discussion of issues Issues? Look at that dry crusty ol' scab, sweetcheeks. > (save to quote massive amounts of stuff). Your reading ability is not my problem.
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 24 Dec 2009 00:52 On Dec 24, 1:24 pm, Keth <kethiswo...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Dec 23, 7:41 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On Dec 23, 9:04 pm, Keth <kethiswo...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: .... > It appears to me that YOU are playing philosophy. I am merely pointed > out the danger of using common sense rather than the actual causation. Well point out the danger of a person answering "A car knocked her over as she was crossing the road" to the question "what caused your sister's death?" Go on, point out the great danger! What danger in understanding is it that a philosopher armed with some physics will so greatly avoid? > Let me remind you that the concept of stability of an object such as > a building can be a serious matter and deserves stress analysis rather > than just a philosophical discourse. You cannot remind someone of something they never knew. No one has remotely said that one should offer philosophical discourse if someone asks you the cause of something. The correct thing is to answer appropriate to the context. Going on about the bit of the car that actually hit the sister is going on too much, it is unnecessary. In the case of the building, it is very important. > This is a misuse of philosophy > and should be avoided. You are confused greatly about philosophy. It is a subject, not some tool. > This kind of thinking can not generate any > useful conclusion. The discussion of stability based on common sense > is not a good way to analyze the causation. You are the one that > claimed four legs is the cause of stable table. > If two tables are compared and one is a bit wobbly and the other is not and it is due to that one has four well spaced thick legs and the other only 1 (nice and thick but only one!), then it is very true and rather obvious that the stability is due to the one having 4 legs. It is simply not true that unsophisticated and physics-deprived people are wholly ill equipped to understand the basics of causation. My mum knew good enough what caused what in her world. How the hell do you think man ever got to the stage he is at? > > > 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. > > I am referring to the thinking by categories. As our discussion shows, > deduction with category terms runs the danger of making false > conclusion. > I have no idea what you mean. The logical machinery of deduction has nothing per se to do with causation. > > > 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. > > ... > > This is very true, and mankind certainly is far from understanding the > deep level causation. For example the true nature of force is still a > mystery. But we cannot ignore what we have found so far simply because > they are not perfect knowledge yet. No one is suggesting anyone should ignore it full stop. But sometimes it is not relevant. But perhaps I should say this to encourage you, at least you are thinking a bit, more than I can say for *most of the baboons* whom I have the terrible misfortune to be dealing with here and am having to constantly club because they are such a crude menace. <g> Let's go back to the specific issue of can A cause B without preceding B. I have suggested it is not necessary and you are making at least the interesting suggestion that when the situation is fully analysed, it is about things preceding other things. I concede that whenever A causes B, there might well be things that are relevantly precede B. But I am just pointing out that the way we use the notion of causation does not force one to always go for precedence. There is also a whole field of backwards causation which you are probably unaware of. It has been argued by the philosophers and some cosmologists that a later event could cause an earlier one.
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 24 Dec 2009 01:11 On Dec 24, 4:44 pm, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > On Dec 23, 1:51 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. > > The table legs per se do not cause stability. Yes they do, as arranged. The whole context is the acting in time and you, naturally, being a baboon, a sexist pig and basketweaver rolled into one, would not have the least understanding of this! Now, rack off.
From: M Purcell on 24 Dec 2009 01:12
On Dec 23, 6:06 pm, Keth <kethiswo...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 3, 5:49 pm, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > We can transform the former form to the latter through the operator > > > "add". Adding two pairs together create a condition that can be > > > transformed to one group of four. > > > What condition? Equivalence? > > A condition is basically a trigger of certain rules. In the time > domain, a given condition will trigger certain underlying mechanism > and turns one equilibrium state into another state. For example, > lighting gasoline creates a condition that triggers explosion. In the time domain, the only condition that will change anything is an increase in entropy. Some changes happen faster than others. Do you mean some kind of equivalence in an equilibrium state? > A condition in the timeless domain is a trigger to activate certain > rules of certainty. For example, the mathematic rule asserts A*(B+C) > =A*B+A*C. A term 2*999999999+2*1 triggers this rule so that we can > transform the calculation into simpler form 2*(999999999+1) = > 1000000000. 2*(999999999+1) = 2000000000 = 2*10^9 = two billion. Where is the trigger? Your example just matches a rule to a situation. > > > I already explain that transformation like this can be emulated with > > > operation "add" in a time domain. > > > Emulated? How is it different? > > The difference is in application. When we do calculation with logical > or mathematical transformations, we treat the operands as actual > actions in time domain. For example, add is like an actual action of > addition. In timeless domain, it is not an action, just a notion to > transform. And division is a way to reproduce? |