Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: Keth on 24 Dec 2009 01:21 On Dec 24, 12:52 am, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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? A condition that triggers this tragedy can be analyzed more thoroughly than your simple analysis. I have heard number of cases where a person walked across the street suddenly and the driver couldnt avoid her or him and caused the accident. Thus the condition that causes the accident is mainly the pedestrians recklessness and negligence and in this case the driver is not at fault. > > 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. > > This is a misuse of philosophy > > and should be avoided. > > You are confused greatly about philosophy. It is a subject, not some > tool. Philosophy is a subject with many tools to deal with the universe. I was referring to the view that these tools are often misused. > > 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? It is simply not enough to analyze the stable table with common sense. > > > > 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. I didnt even mention causation in this paragraph. Why bring it up? Depending on the application, deduction can be conducted with causal rules or logical/mathematical rules. > > > > 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. It is very relevant in this case. > 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. Its a theory that no one can prove. Everyone is free to theorize anything. In this case, no one has proven that this theory is wrong.
From: Keth on 24 Dec 2009 01:36 No. > > 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? No.
From: Keth on 24 Dec 2009 01:42 On Dec 24, 1:12 am, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > 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. The match is the trigger. One needs to find a match to the condition that can trigger a transformation.
From: Keth on 24 Dec 2009 02:02 On Dec 24, 1:12 am, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > 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? The notion = sometimes means transformation in both directions. For example, 2+2 -> 4 and 4 -> 2+2 can be written as 2+2=4. The -> and <- are more in the sense of transformed into than equivalence. In logic and mathematics, terms are constantly transformed into different forms.
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 24 Dec 2009 03:49
On Dec 24, 5:21 pm, Keth <kethiswo...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Dec 24, 12:52 am, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > 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: .... > > 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?" What danger in > > understanding is it that a philosopher armed with some physics will so > > greatly avoid? > > A condition that triggers this tragedy can be analyzed more > thoroughly than your simple analysis. Have I denied this? What is the exact point of doing this, it might not be relevant, it might not be what the questioner wants to know. > I have heard number of cases > where a person walked across the street suddenly and the driver > couldnt avoid her or him and caused the accident. Thus the > condition that causes the accident is mainly the pedestrians > recklessness and negligence and in this case the driver is not at > fault. > You seem not to understand that this further elaboration is not inconsistent with that a car crashing into her at speed caused her death. You want to be a causal geek, fine, be one. But don't bore people who ask causal questions, it might be inappropriate. .... > > 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? > > It is simply not enough to analyze the stable table with common sense. > Not enough for who and in what context? It is perfectly appropriate for everyday situations. > > > > > > 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. > .... > > > No one is suggesting anyone should ignore it full stop. But sometimes > > it is not relevant. > > It is very relevant in this case. > I don't see how it is relevant. I have a jar on my desk, it has a magnet on the bottom of the jar. The jar is upside down on the desk and the magnet is therefore on the top. Inside the jar are four needles attached to cotton, the cotton is jammed by the lid, the four needles are poised just under the magnet and there is an air gap between the needles and the glass. It has been undisturbed for years and continues in its arrangement. The cause of the needles being like they are is the attraction from the magnet. In its arrangent there is no obvious series of temporal events one after the other. It is perfectly still and static. I really cannot see why it *has* to contain temporally distinct events, from a conceptual point of view. > > > 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. > > Its a theory that no one can prove. Everyone is free to theorize > anything. In this case, no one has proven that this theory is wrong. You misunderstandn. If it is a theory that can be understood, then it is a theory which shows that there is no logical necessity for a cause to precede its effect. But I will settle for that that some causes are contemporaneous with their effects. |