Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: Michael Gordge on 24 Dec 2009 17:15 On Dec 24, 10:07 am, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Oh so none of your dopey different Kantian inspired invented ambiguous meanings mentions anything about subjective being a totally mind dependent, matterless, sensory evidence bereft concept - i.e. where reality is generated or controlled by a conscious mind? MG
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 24 Dec 2009 17:59 On Dec 24, 8:22 pm, Keth <kethiswo...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Dec 24, 9:49 am, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > You seem not to understand that this further elaboration is not > > inconsistent with that a car crashing into her at speed caused her > > death. > > ... It is critically important to determine who actually > "causes" the accident. It may not matter to you, but it is essential > for the driver and the victim's families. You are off again here. > Critical to who? In what circumstances. If someone asks how did a person die, the answer that it was due to a car accident might well be quite sufficient. To answer in terms of atomic physics and Newtonian laws and the history of the drivers concerned etc might simply 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. > > But not enough in serious discussion. > In a court of law, it does not get more serious than this, some evidence might consist of the fact that someone died as a result of a car accident. No more description than this. It happens all the time that some things are not gone into in detail. It is not always relevant even in a *serious* discussion. .... > > 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. > > .... There are underlying mechanism at play. > The magnet attracting the needles is one of the causes of the equilibrium and there are no temporal elements in this situation that need to be understood for there to be a claim of causation here. And it is not a conceptual necessity that there *has to be* > > > > 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. > > What is the proof that these theories are correct? They do not need to be correct, it is enough that they might make *sense* to show you that a cause does not have to be before the thing it is causing. I would settle for it being at the same time.
From: Michael Gordge on 25 Dec 2009 17:47 On Dec 26, 7:11 am, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > And hopefully all threads I am in, that would be the nicest Xmas > present! You are a total dope Zinnic. Join that other complete > basketweaver, Stafford. Speaking of basketweavers, ewe still haven't substaniated your dopey Kantian claim that subjective is an "ambiguous word", why dont you give an example of at least two of the so called "different meanings" (therefore totally unrelated) that ewe claim subjective has? MG
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 25 Dec 2009 18:38 On Dec 26, 9:47 am, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > On Dec 26, 7:11 am, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > And hopefully all threads I am in, that would be the nicest Xmas > > present! You are a total dope Zinnic. Join that other complete > > basketweaver, Stafford. > > ...ewe still haven't substaniated your dopey > Kantian claim that subjective is an "ambiguous word", why dont you > give an example of at least two of the so called "different > meanings" (therefore totally unrelated) that ewe claim subjective has? > > MG You are so persistent! To the point that it is almost endearing, you sweet little plum ! There really is no point in trying to have any kind of intelligent conversation with you because you are an utter madman. There is no evidence that you understand the least thing in the main subject of this thread. In Zinnic's case, he is a superficial incurious lying fool. And in Statfford's case, he is a serial incompetent .
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 25 Dec 2009 22:13
On Dec 24, 12:20 pm, chazwin <chazwy...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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. What took you so long to realise this? |