Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 27 Dec 2009 16:34 On Dec 27, 7:11 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > Clearly ewe and I are not in the same universe when it comes to the > defintion, meaning and purpose of reason. > It is pretty clear that ewe are not in the same universe as anyone else. What's it like from the inside?
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 27 Dec 2009 16:55 On Dec 27, 9:52 pm, chazwin <chazwy...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Dec 27, 5:56 am, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > A random event is an event for which there is no reason for it to have > > happened the way it did rather than another way. > > But can such an event EVER take place? > Is not the throw of a penny bound by the laws of physics? > Yes, sure. But it depends on what the physics is, it is not the direct concern of the philosopher in this issue of induction. It is irrelevant in a way: the penny example is a mere example of an ideal random event. The main relevant feature of such an example is to illustrate that mere sequence does not give ground for reasoning to above 50% for the next outcome. Something more is needed. There is a lot more to good reasoning that cannot be described as deductive. But I have yet to see some one element that can be usefully called an inductive element. So far, as I have said so many times, merely describing the brilliant reasoning of scientists (and the literature is chock o block of the stories of investigations and successes). > > So, the penny example > > is rather nice, we imagine a totally evenly made penny tossed by a > > process we do not know and it could come up heads or tails there being > > nothing to go on to say which way it will come down. > > How would this be possible? > What quite is the *relevant* difficulty you are imagining?
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 27 Dec 2009 17:00 On Dec 27, 10:26 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > On Dec 27, 7:52 pm, chazwin <chazwy...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > But can such an event EVER take place? > > Is not the throw of a penny bound by the laws of physics? > > This is an amazing change in your thinking Chazzzzz. A couple of years > ago on the exact same subject I told you that a coin would land > according to very strict laws of physics, and because of that fact, > that it was theoretically possible for man, who could land a space- > ship on mars after a couple of orbits of other planets on the way, > that he could also use his knowledge of the laws of physics and > determine how that coin would land, and I explained to ewe that > 'chance' played no part in how a tossed coin would land, ewe called me > stupid and that I was wrong and that I did not know what I was talking > about, ewe repeated several times that the coin would land according > to chance (random) 50/50 heads or tails. > There is no contradiction between a coin being subject to the laws of physics and it being a random event in relation to the evidence we have.
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 27 Dec 2009 17:04 On Dec 28, 12:06 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > Philosophy is not my strong point...not even my medium point ;-). > And it will never be unless you read and try to understand the many posts I have made with a lot of actual argument instead of being distracted by the posts that are to do with trolls that also do not understand philosophy. What do you think you know about science that is relevant to the problem of induction that I do not know? Perhaps you should detail these things instead of making your silly opinions public.
From: Michael Gordge on 27 Dec 2009 17:05
On Dec 28, 1:40 am, chazwin <chazwy...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > You were insisting that a device that could actually predict the fall > of a coin was already invented. Yes thats right, the same device that man used to send a space-ship to mars, its called a callculator being operated by some very clever and hard working human beings. > I also said that such a device would affect the outcome - measuring > actually changes the forces. The callculator didn't stop the space-ship landing on mars, just as it wont affect the outcome of a tossed coin. > So whilst it is POSSIBLE that such a device could be invented - It has, but which you reject. > it > would be, in effect a machine for throwing a coin in a particular way > to get either heads or tails. Oh there's a lot more information needed for the callculation than just the way the coin is tossed, chazzz, but this is encouraging, given your original stance was, it would land 50/50 no matter how it was tossed. Cant be botherer with the rest, but good to see you beginning to think for yourself. MG |