Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: M Purcell on 29 Dec 2009 19:38 On Dec 29, 4:31 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. My explination would have been unnecessary if either of you had bothered to looked the word "random" up in a dictionary.
From: Marshall on 29 Dec 2009 21:31 On Dec 29, 2:43 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > 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? In the above-quoted sentence, "axiomatic" functions as an adjective. It changes the meaning of the following noun via the rules of English syntax. If you are unsure about the meaning of any particular word, you can use a "dictionary" to find out what it means. Here's a link: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/axiom The relevant entry here is number 3: "(Logic, Mathematics.) a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it." Marshall
From: Michael Gordge on 30 Dec 2009 02:20 On Dec 30, 11:31 am, Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > In the above-quoted sentence, "axiomatic" functions as > an adjective. It changes the meaning of the following > noun via the rules of English syntax. Shrug, how does the adjective axiomatic change the meaning of certainty. MG
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 30 Dec 2009 02:52 On Dec 30, 11:38 am, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Dec 29, 4:31 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > 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. > > My explination would have been unnecessary if either of you had > bothered to looked the word "random" up in a dictionary. You must be some sort of philosophical idiot to suppose that something like: random |ËrandÉm| adjective made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision : a random sample of 100 households. ⢠Statistics governed by or involving equal chances for each item. ⢠(of masonry) with stones of irregular size and shape. PHRASES at random without method or conscious decision : he opened the book at random. DERIVATIVES randomly adverb randomness noun ORIGIN Middle English (in the sense [impetuous headlong rush] ): from Old French randon âgreat speed,â from randir âgallop,â from a Germanic root shared by rand 2 . would trump dorayme's analysis in the thread on the concept of random event.
From: Zinnic on 30 Dec 2009 10:59
On Dec 29, 4:30 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > In article <hhcuo402...(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 Woo hoo! I see that you respond obediently to Paricia's call. Has the dummy learned to pull the ventriloquists strings? You wrote the following confusion-- ".....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 (sic)." What premises grrow and what is the argument to which your refer? That there are birds on the island. That the birds in the island are silent. Therefore - the birds on the island are dumb ? Snicker. Under what general circumstances does this argument have a reasonable form? Whatever the "argument" is, even if you deny it is induction, explain how the continued silence strengthens it as a deduction when it can be invalidated by a single sqwauk! Nice chatting with you again Zinnic |