Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 27 Dec 2009 17:25 On Dec 28, 4:01 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > You, or someone, asked if a coin had been flipped 1,000 times and > produced 1,000 heads whether it was sound to consider that the 1,001 > flip would also be heads. The proper induction is Yes, it is likely to > be heads. Wrong answer in the context of the problem of induction. You are not listening to the noiseless parts of the thread. You and Zinnic started the noise as I have documented so don't get cute about this. There is no "proper induction" to yes. There may well be a reasonable belief in the next toss being heads, but what is under question here is what makes it reasonable and is this thing that makes it reasonable due to an identifiable form of argument ete etc etc as I have constantly explained. You keep on missing that I too would bet on a penny coming up heads again if it had really come up heads a thousand times in a row. It would clearly be a crook coin or something. But this is not the point. What the point is I have explained many many times and, because you don't *get* philosophy, you prefer to descend into trolling and personal abuse, you cannot see what the real issue is. Hume wrote about it and you show absolutely no understanding of his concerns. None at all. You don't even notice the questions you are begging in thinking how obviously one "properly" induces a conclusion. You don't notice because you are not concentrating on anything but the superficialities and the personal abuse which you are one of the main instigators of.
From: Michael Gordge on 27 Dec 2009 18:19 On Dec 28, 1:40 am, chazwin <chazwy...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > though the universe is > deterministic (which I have always maintained), You have always denied free will? You have always denied that people have or can make a choice between good and bad right and wrong? MG
From: John Stafford on 27 Dec 2009 20:36 In article <5bdbcbe8-8e48-47cd-b831-e8710616f043(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldoraz(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 28, 4:01�am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > > You, or someone, asked if a coin had been flipped 1,000 times and > > produced 1,000 heads whether it was sound to consider that the 1,001 > > flip would also be heads. The proper induction is Yes, it is likely to > > be heads. > > Wrong answer in the context of the problem of induction. You are not > listening to the noiseless parts of the thread. You and Zinnic started > the noise as I have documented so don't get cute about this. Incorrect. Your post (snipped) reflects _your_ penchant to the gambler's fallacy which is not applicable in this case. 1000 heads in a row is an indication that that the flip is biased, so the prediction for the next outcome, 1001, is perfectly a acceptable induction.
From: chazwin on 28 Dec 2009 04:45 On Dec 27, 10:05 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > 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. There is no calculator that is able to predict the fall of a coin. There are too many factors that we are not able to measure when a coin is thrown from the hand. spin speed, angular velocity, distance to the table, force, air resistance, how bouncy the table is. > > > 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. See above. > > > So whilst it is POSSIBLE that such a device could be invented - > > It has, but which you reject. See above. > > > 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. On average the coin lands 50/50 > > Cant be botherer with the rest, but good to see you beginning to think > for yourself. Sad to see that you think I will believe such bullshit that you offer as a solution > > MG
From: chazwin on 28 Dec 2009 04:59
On Dec 27, 9:55 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. The assertion as to whether there are truly random events is of vital importance in the question of induction. If you can't see that then you will be forever running round in circles with this question. 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. What 'more' is needed is that you need to abandon the fiction that there is any such thing as a real random event. One the penny leaves the hand it is set on a course of action that is determined by the force and sped of the the throw, the spin of the coin, the resistance of the air, and the reflective ability of the table and the coin. > > There is a lot more to good reasoning that cannot be described as > deductive. All deduction can do is to confirm an anticipation, either good or ill. Once a deduction is made is inevitably is used only to confirm its own premise. Induction is the only thing able to find something new. > But I have yet to see some one element that can be usefully > called an inductive element. Eh? What do yo mean by '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? Tossed by a process we do not know? |