Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: Y.Porat on 28 Dec 2009 05:22 On Dec 27, 4:46 pm, Aleph <Usenet....(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > In article <461224e9-e767-4343-930b-5556eee769b7 > @m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, sent to sci.physics on Fri, 25 Dec 2009 > 23:28:04 -0800 (PST), Y.Porat <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> imparted these words > of wisdom: > > > i start to suspect that actually > > Aleph = PD .......!! > > Dont you get bored of being wrong? > > Please try to spend a little less time thinking I am someone else or a > little more time learning science. > > > 2 > > until now i was looking for PD s innovations > > and found not6hing !!! > > Your failure to use google is no one elses problem. > > > so we have here an abstract philosopher parrot > > Blah, blah. > > -- > Aleph > > This article was posted to USENET, please reply in that manner. Emails > to this account will be ignored. ---------------- i start to - even more -suspect that: Aleph =PD ..... Y.P -----------------------
From: Zinnic on 28 Dec 2009 05:25 On Dec 27, 3:55 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. 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. Jeeez Pa------aaatricia, let us move on, we all are aware of this. But in reality lo--------ooong sequences in reality do happen to repeat. That is why we do not step off a precipice and ignore your 50% chance that we will walk on air. >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 describe "good reasoning" that is neither deductive nor inductive! Please include in your answer "the brilliant reasonings of scientists",
From: Zinnic on 28 Dec 2009 05:36 On Dec 27, 4:04 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Hi Patsy! I guess that uncalled for 'put down' really recharged your ego. Need I say more? Hey! Patsy/dorayme hates me more than the rest of you folks. Smirk!
From: John Stafford on 28 Dec 2009 08:19 In article <0835d1d7-b36f-4e0e-b50d-505c9c9fe6a5(a)j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldoraz(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 28, 12:36�pm, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > In article > > <5bdbcbe8-8e48-47cd-b831-e8710616f...(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, > > �Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(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. > > > > The only interest I have in the Gambler's Fallacy is that it is an > illustration that *mere sequence* and the piling up of data points is > no ingredient in strengthening an argument. That is far, far too general a statement to be useful, and besides the point of the case of the fallacy is not argument, but prediction. > As I have said before, you simply don't *get* what philosophy is > about. You have no idea whatsoever of my understanding because you are only beginning to learn to think.
From: Zinnic on 28 Dec 2009 11:00
On Dec 28, 7:19 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > In article > <0835d1d7-b36f-4e0e-b50d-505c9c9fe...(a)j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, > Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 28, 12:36 pm, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > > In article > > > <5bdbcbe8-8e48-47cd-b831-e8710616f...(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, > > > Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(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. > > > The only interest I have in the Gambler's Fallacy is that it is an > > illustration that *mere sequence* and the piling up of data points is > > no ingredient in strengthening an argument. > > That is far, far too general a statement to be useful, and besides the > point of the case of the fallacy is not argument, but prediction. > > > As I have said before, you simply don't *get* what philosophy is > > about. > > You have no idea whatsoever of my understanding because you are only > beginning to learn to think.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - His/er problem is a refusal to think. She /he has learned philosophy by rote and regurgitates it undigested in posts. He panics at the slightest deviation from his script, goes into a default recitation of truisms and then, in frustration, joins with Michael as a purveyor of obscenity. Anyone else notice that he (dorayme) is silent whilst his Patsy is doing his dirty work? That he is dumb whilst pulling her strings? Zinnic |