Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: Michael Gordge on 29 Dec 2009 17:43 On Dec 30, 3:44 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > None of these are axiomatic certainties. Hahahhahahahah, hahahahhahhah I'm sorry I cant stop laughing, how does axiomatic change the meaning of certainty? MG
From: Rod Speed on 29 Dec 2009 18:32 dorayme wrote: > 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. You did not in fact jump on anything. > 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.
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 29 Dec 2009 18:40 On Dec 29, 5:04 pm, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > Now, let's get back to business. Which should be the business of those who claim an inductive form of argument showing exactly what this form is or at the least explaining what is inductive about all arguments that are not deductive. Apart from that they are merely non deductive. Fat chance that you would be up to saying the least interesting or useful thing on this, judging by your fondness for personal abuse. You have this superficial idea that if you don't use foul language, you are not into personal abuse. But that is just a further example of your superficiality. I will say it again: get stuffed or get serious.
From: M Purcell on 29 Dec 2009 18:57 On Dec 29, 2:35 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > In article <kvf6jv....(a)spenarnc.xs4all.nl>, > Albert van der Horst <alb...(a)spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote: > > > > > > > In article <7ppprvFde...(a)mid.individual.net>, > > Rod Speed <rod.speed....(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. I suppose "randomness" is commonly used in this way but a random event is one which is independent of a previous event or evidence. Statistics attempts to demonstrate a tendency of one piece of evidence or event to be related to another. > 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. There does seem to be a question as to if anything is truly random, it's more of a mathematical ideal. However this randomness is the basis of most games of "chance".
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 29 Dec 2009 19:31
On Dec 30, 10:57 am, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Dec 29, 2:35 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > 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. > > I suppose "randomness" is commonly used in this way but a random event > is one which is independent of a previous event or evidence. Notice how you have introduced the notion of "independence". Now what is so useful in dorayme's analysis of "real" randomness (rather than the commonly enough used one) is that it does not rely on a further *unexplained* concept. It piggy backs off the straightforward notion of us not having evidence one way or the other for an event occurring. It just adds the twist that there is never any such evidence in fact, not merely that we have failed to find it. > > > 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. > > There does seem to be a question as to if anything is truly random, > it's more of a mathematical ideal. Maybe, but if you accept dorayme's analysis, there is no need for any ideal. |