Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: Androcles on 29 Dec 2009 09:47 "Albert van der Horst" <albert(a)spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote in message news:kvf6jv.l65(a)spenarnc.xs4all.nl... > 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 God does play dice, Einstein was pissed off because he lost.
From: PD on 29 Dec 2009 13:44 On Dec 23, 4:03 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > On Dec 24, 6:21 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Give me an example of an axiomatic certainty in physics. > > Dunking your head into a bucket of hydrachloric acid would be a real > dopey idea. > > You cant survive by breathing water. > > Explorers of 'the vacuum of outer space' need to be encased in a > specially designed suit or spaceship. > > The coronor would have a hell of a mess to clean up if you jumped from > a plane at 20,000 feet without a parachute and landed on the tarmac. None of these are axiomatic certainties. These are experimental observations. > > MG
From: Rod Speed on 29 Dec 2009 17:08 Albert van der Horst wrote > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote >> chazwin wrote >>> Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote >>>> Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote >>>>> 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". Nope. > The likes of Dirac and Einstein felt very uncomfortable > with the idea that we would never go beyond this. No one ever said we wouldnt. Of course we will. > 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. No one ever said it was. > 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". No it isnt. > 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". Irrelevant to whether anything determines which particular atom decays or not. > (It doesn't mean that Einstein was a religious man, on the contrary.) That is just plain wrong too.
From: dorayme on 29 Dec 2009 17:30 In article <hhcuo402b9q(a)news2.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > Patricia Aldoraz wrote: > > On Dec 28, 11:31 pm, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > >> Patricia Aldoraz 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? > >> You don't know anything about the Scientific Method nor how > >> it is used in science. > >> > > > > Your evidence for this? > > Your writing. > This is not an answer to the question you were asked. If you have some evidence that someone who questions the notion that there is an inductive form of argument (and the details of this questioning are important to understand this skepticism), does not understand science, give the evidence, give the argument. Show and do not merely sit there saying. What is it that you know that is crucial to understanding what makes for the force in forceful argument of a non-deductive kind? In a deductive argument it is that it makes no logical sense to deny the conclusion after accepting the premises or that it is a plain self contradiction. If you are accusing someone of not understanding science, give the crucial evidence. Show at least what someone would say to answer the puzzles of the problem of induction if they *did* understand the processes of science and show how this answer is a good one and depends crucially on understanding something that the history of science books have repeated ad nauseum for at least 70 years. (You seem to think it is some sort of abstruse secret) > Now, are you familiar with the activity known as > "proof by induction"? (I have a bad feeling that you've > not taken any math courses.) > Before demanding the answer to this question, how about showing its relevance to the well known and traditional problem of induction in philosophy. Do some philosophy, don't just sit there making ignorant remarks. Mathematical induction has no *obvious* connection to the sort of argument that people regularly use to jump to a conclusion like that all the birds are quite silent on a particular island that is being visited for the first time. As the days go on and the birds are observed and the silence continues, the data points and the premises grow and the argument is strengthed. This has no obvious connection with mathematical induction. Mathematical induction is a form of deductive reasoning. It is just that you have no real conception what deductive reasoning really is, you probably think it is some old fuddy duddy thing that has simple forms and that Aristotle had the last word on this or something. -- dorayme
From: dorayme on 29 Dec 2009 17:35
In article <kvf6jv.l65(a)spenarnc.xs4all.nl>, Albert van der Horst <albert(a)spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote: > 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. > As I have explained before, there are two ways to jump on the idea of random event. One way is to think of it in relation to the evidence we have. In this way, it does not matter at all about whether some event is "really" random. In this way of the idea, something is random if we have no way at all in fact of knowing which way it will turn out. The other way is built on this notion but has a twist: a *really* random event is one that no matter what we could know about it in this world, no matter how clever we were or what evidence we collected or how fast and accurate our calculating abilities or machines, we would still be quite unable to predict one way or the other. -- dorayme |