Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: Marshall on 30 Dec 2009 20:53 On Dec 30, 1:02 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > On Dec 31, 3:55 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Well, for one thing, "axiom" means something very specific. > > The question is, how does certainty change in meaning by being > preceeded with the adjective axiomatic? I gave you the specific relevant dictionary definition. How is it that you still don't know? Marshall
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 30 Dec 2009 22:19 On Dec 31, 1:39 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > > Quote from one of your earlier posts:- > > "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 have agreed in earlier posts that the longer a sequence of > identical outcomes, then the stronger becomes your suspicion that > there is an underlying causative factor for the repetition ( I am > aware that the repetition is not itself causative). > That is, as the repetition continues it is "reasonable" (your word in > the above quote) for a mere suspicion to become an assumption and, > eventually, a confident 'assertion' that the repetition will continue > (despite the fact that certainty is not attained.) > > Explain how the quote from your post above is not simply your 'dance > on the head of a pin' in a convulated attempt to eliminate induction > as a reasonable means of assuming/asserting premisses used in a > subsequent deduction. This is blatent conflaltion of induction and > deduction. What kind of jumbled inarticulate question is this? But I will cut you some slack because you are being reasonably polite (which I appreciate). Basically what you want to know is how can I reconcile my skepticism about induction being any sort of good argument with my admitted enthusiasm for happily betting on the next throw being a tails after the penny has constantly come down tails and never heads in a long sequence. Simple my dear Watson, I don't think my bet is based on inductive form of argument. I don't think there is such a form. It is a deduction from a theory I happen to hold. This theory is that the coin is a crook one, is weighted and will come down tails. I may well have formed the theory on the basis of psychological imperatives to do with sequences inducing (causing) things to happen to my brain. But causes to dream up theories is not the stuff of arguments. More later... you are getting warmer and starting to ask the right questions. Be nice now!
From: Michael Gordge on 31 Dec 2009 01:07 On Dec 31, 10:53 am, Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 30, 1:02 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > > > On Dec 31, 3:55 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Well, for one thing, "axiom" means something very specific. > > > The question is, how does certainty change in meaning by being > > preceeded with the adjective axiomatic? > > I gave you the specific relevant dictionary definition. > How is it that you still don't know? > > Marshall Is your name PD? If so then explain what meaning does certainty have prior to preceeding it with the adjective axiomatic and then explain the meaning that certainty has by preceeding it with the adjective axiomatic. You said the meaning of certainty changes, I am simply asking from what to what. MG MG
From: jmfbahciv on 31 Dec 2009 09:19 dorayme wrote: > 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, Accusations? The reason Patricia seems to be having difficulties in this discussion is because she keeps dismissing all talk about science and experiments, etc. From my point of view, that activity is the basis of all knowledge. >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) If a person is color-blind, it will be impossible to talk about red things. I've been trying to find out if Patricia has any knowledge about the hard sciences and/or math. Some of the people who are frustrating her happen to be talking about science and how knowledge is gained in those areas. I've been reading this thread to see if somebody can give an example of the use of inductive reasoning. So far, nobody has. And I'm posting from sci.physics. /BAH > > >> 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. >
From: Zinnic on 31 Dec 2009 09:08
On Dec 30, 9:19 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 31, 1:39 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Quote from one of your earlier posts:- > > > "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 have agreed in earlier posts that the longer a sequence of > > identical outcomes, then the stronger becomes your suspicion that > > there is an underlying causative factor for the repetition ( I am > > aware that the repetition is not itself causative). > > That is, as the repetition continues it is "reasonable" (your word in > > the above quote) for a mere suspicion to become an assumption and, > > eventually, a confident 'assertion' that the repetition will continue > > (despite the fact that certainty is not attained.) > > > Explain how the quote from your post above is not simply your 'dance > > on the head of a pin' in a convulated attempt to eliminate induction > > as a reasonable means of assuming/asserting premisses used in a > > subsequent deduction. This is blatent conflaltion of induction and > > deduction. > > What kind of jumbled inarticulate question is this? But I will cut you > some slack because you are being reasonably polite (which I > appreciate). > > Basically what you want to know is how can I reconcile my skepticism > about induction being any sort of good argument with my admitted > enthusiasm for happily betting on the next throw being a tails after > the penny has constantly come down tails and never heads in a long > sequence. > > Simple my dear Watson, I don't think my bet is based on inductive form > of argument. I don't think there is such a form. It is a deduction > from a theory I happen to hold. This theory is that the coin is a > crook one, is weighted and will come down tails. I may well have > formed the theory on the basis of psychological imperatives to do with > sequences inducing (causing) things to happen to my brain. But causes > to dream up theories is not the stuff of arguments. > > More later... you are getting warmer and starting to ask the right > questions. Be nice now!- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Thank you for your courtesy (following the first sentence of your post!). Here you admit that you have a theory in which you claim to ELIMINATE the inductive element of argument by encompassing it in deduction. No induction, all deduction! With respect I submit that you simply beg the question with your ".... sequences 'inducing' (causing) things to happen to my brain". (my scare quotes). You need to explain why you believe this is not inductive reasoning that leads to knowledge! That is, the affirmative of this thread's topic. I am aware that you may not be interested in responding. So be it, Amen Have a good year Zinnic. |