Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: Zinnic on 30 Dec 2009 11:12 On Dec 29, 4:35 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. > > 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 Jeez! Now ignorance of a cause is identical to absence of a cause. So, were eclipses of heavenly bodies random events before they could be predicted? If you are unable to answer maybe your patsy Patriciaa will oblige. Zinnic
From: PD on 30 Dec 2009 13:53 On Dec 29, 4:35 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. > > 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 But here there is an interesting development. If there are local "hidden" variables that determine behavior in a strictly deterministic fashion, then certain experiments can root out their presence, even without knowing what the variables are. This is the point of Bell's Theorem. And follow-up experiments by Aspect et al., demonstrated that nature does not employ local variables that just happen to be hidden from us. PD
From: PD on 30 Dec 2009 13:55 On Dec 29, 4:43 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? > > MG Well, for one thing, "axiom" means something very specific. It is a statement that is *presumed* to be true without proof or evidence, upon which derivations of other statements can be made. PD
From: PD on 30 Dec 2009 13:57 On Dec 30, 1:20 am, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > 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 Observational evidence is distinguished from axiomatic statements, though both are taken to have some level of certainty. Axiomatic statements are presumed to be true WITHOUT proof by dint of observational evidence, though in most cases axioms are *consistent* with observational evidence. PD
From: Zinnic on 30 Dec 2009 14:14
On Dec 29, 5:40 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. I know you did not refer to me in this post, but I feel so left out that I cannot resist commenting! Explain (dear kind philosophy teacher) why conclusions strengthened by experiences of highly repetitive sequences do not arise by force of inductive argument but (perforce) by non-deductive or deductive argument. In this regard, dear sweet dorayme-patsy teacher, tell me how the argument below is correctly characterized. As inductive, deductive, non-deductive, observational, or simply a truism (inherently conditional on the validity of the first premise)? Argument: All steps in sequence A have an identical outcome (Ist premise). Additional steps in sequence A will occur (2nd premise). The outcome of all additional steps in sequence A will be identical to previous outcomes (conclusion). This is such fun, don'tcha think? Have a good New Year! Zinnic (PS. I already stuffed myself over the holiday) |