Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 28 Dec 2009 21:17 On Dec 29, 12:59 pm, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > No amount of screaming will change the case. You mean the case that you never make any useful or detailed analysis.
From: John Stafford on 29 Dec 2009 00:07 In article <ac5da12e-7c90-4f50-83b9-6c3d66c7a2a3(a)d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldoraz(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 29, 12:59�pm, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > > No amount of screaming will change the case. > > You mean the case that you never make any useful or detailed analysis. Has old-age made you stupid? Read up.
From: Michael Gordge on 29 Dec 2009 01:08 On Dec 28, 6:45 pm, chazwin <chazwy...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > There is no calculator that is able to predict the fall of a coin. Oh its a pretty smart man who can calculate how a tossed coin will land without using a calculator for many calculations. > 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. Not as many as there are sending a space-ship to mars millions of miles from earth to collect rock samples and take photos after sending it around a couple of other planets on the way to gather enough energy to complete the journey, if man can do that, and he can and he has, then he can calculate how a tossed coin will land in the tiny confines of earth's atmospher at sea-level. > On average the coin lands 50/50 shrug, boring context, thats a different subject, the coin lands according to very strict laws of physics and coins have been known to land on their edge, which rules out 50/50. MG
From: Zinnic on 29 Dec 2009 09:34 On Dec 28, 4:17 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 28, 9:25 pm, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > > > > > > > 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, > > Don't you get too folksy-fresh with me! > > > let us move on, we all are aware of this. > > You never seem aware of anything. But I will read on to see if you > say the least sensible thing or are mired in your usual hazy > confusions and ignorance... > > > But in reality lo--------ooong sequences in reality do happen to > > repeat. > > This is a worthless trivial truism. *All* sequences repeat no matter > how they go. You and that other superficial idiot Stafford could never > in a million years understand this. Go and read dorayme's teachings on > this in the thread on randomness. Your usual dismissive cop out! You know that by repetition I mean continuation of the pattern. Apparently you are unaware that sympathetic readings of the other's argument is to be expected in civil philosophical discussion. As to your randomness "teaching", what does that have to do with the price of grapes in winter? > > That is why we do not step off a precipice and ignore your > > 50% chance that we will walk on air. > > That is not why at all. You don't know what you are talking about. > And, by the way, 50% chances are not owned by me. Another dismissive cop out!I The reason you do not step off a precipice is that you see no likelyhood that you will walk on air! A long sequence of life experiences demonstrates this, so one reasonably induces the premiss that the outcome will be repeated. Given the assumption that this induced premiss (one will fall) is true, one can deduce with certainty that injury will result if it is tested. Do you base your attempt to conflate induction with deduction on the trivial truism that the validity of induced premisses are all, to some degree, suspect? > > >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" > > Why? The literature is full of them. Go do any half decent course in > the history of science. What non of you usenet guys seem to understand > is that the problem of induction is to isolate and understand if > there is something that is to be usefully called induction. I am > satisfied that it is probably a lost cause, and that what makes for > reasonabless in argumeent is no such identifiable element. I quote: > > In the search for what might be the "reasonable part" of so called > inductive processes, one can declare that there are forms in the way > that there are forms of deductive arguments or one might simply note > that not all deductive arguments have a form but are simply such that > one cannot reasonably assert the premises and deny the conclusion and > be reasonable in doing so. Either way, the problem of induction is to > identify if there is *any general circumstances* that can be described > in which one can assert a set of premises and conclude something where > it would always be unreasonable to deny that at least the premises > give the conclusion some weight of probability You are simply asserting that inductive conclusions cannot be used as premisses in the deduction of certainties. Who could possibly disagree with such profundity? Snicker! Zinnic
From: Albert van der Horst on 29 Dec 2009 10:19
In article <7ppprvFdetU1(a)mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote: >chazwin wrote: >> On Dec 27, 5:56 am, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> On Dec 27, 4:11 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: >>> >>>> On Dec 27, 1:40 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>> >>>>> To understand this concept, you need to >>>>> have firmly understood the concept of a random even. >>> >>>> I firmly understand the dopey concept random, random has only one >>>> use, its what ewe Kantian clowns call an event that you cant explain >>>> rationally / practically, when you avoid / run away from reason. >>> >>> This is sort of close. A random event, what was dorayme's >>> formulation, anyone remember? (Woo hoo dorayme, are you there? It's >>> Patricia here!) >>> >>> 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? > >Yes, most obviously with radioactive decay where which >atom decays at a particular instant really is random. This is "with regard to the current state of physics". The likes of Dirac and Einstein felt very uncomfortable with the idea that we would never go beyond this. Despite the formidable predictive and explanatory power of current physics, there are enough loose ends to be careful not to consider physics a done deal. In fact modern physics has no consistent mathematical model of reality, the way Newton or Maxwell had it. (Not consistent, but more comprehensive.) This is the meaning of Einstein's famous words: "God doesn't play dice". It evokes the picture of a man with a beard, at each Planck's time instant throwing dice to decide which atom would live, and which would die. This picture is to be associated with that other picture of a Zeus who commands lighting, an equally anti-scientific attitude: No we don't need to investigate lightning, "goddiddit". (It doesn't mean that Einstein was a religious man, on the contrary.) Groetjes Albert -- -- Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters. albert(a)spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst |