Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 31 Dec 2009 09:30 John Stafford wrote: > In article > <e6657e15-0ffc-4904-a0c8-6c95f8f8b4cf(a)j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, > Zinnic <zeenric2(a)gate.net> wrote: > >> On Dec 29, 6:00 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> [...] > >> 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.) > > In an inductive argument, the observation of a consistent behavior can > be a premise. The premise need only be strong enough that _if they are > true_, then the conclusion is _likely_ to be true. This is quite unlike > deductive reasoning where a _valid argument and sound conclusion_ are > guaranteed to be true. > <snip> So the answer to the title's question is no; however, inductive reasoning can lead to a correct premise. Am I getting this stuff or am I still not understanding what you're saying. /BAH
From: Zinnic on 31 Dec 2009 09:49 On Dec 31, 8:30 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > John Stafford wrote: > > In article > > <e6657e15-0ffc-4904-a0c8-6c95f8f8b...(a)j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, > > Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > > >> On Dec 29, 6:00 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> [...] > > >> 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.) > > > In an inductive argument, the observation of a consistent behavior can > > be a premise. The premise need only be strong enough that _if they are > > true_, then the conclusion is _likely_ to be true. This is quite unlike > > deductive reasoning where a _valid argument and sound conclusion_ are > > guaranteed to be true. > > <snip> > > So the answer to the title's question is no; however, inductive > reasoning can lead to a correct premise. > > Am I getting this stuff or am I still not understanding what > you're saying. I am interested in how you reason to exclude "correct premise" from your definition of knowledge. Z
From: John Stafford on 31 Dec 2009 12:23 In article <hhibq82e19(a)news3.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > John Stafford wrote: > > In article > > <e6657e15-0ffc-4904-a0c8-6c95f8f8b4cf(a)j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, > > Zinnic <zeenric2(a)gate.net> wrote: > > > >> On Dec 29, 6:00 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> [...] > > > >> 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.) > > > > In an inductive argument, the observation of a consistent behavior can > > be a premise. The premise need only be strong enough that _if they are > > true_, then the conclusion is _likely_ to be true. This is quite unlike > > deductive reasoning where a _valid argument and sound conclusion_ are > > guaranteed to be true. > > > <snip> > > So the answer to the title's question is no; however, inductive > reasoning can lead to a correct premise. Inductive reasoning can lead to practical and theoretical understanding, which is knowledge.
From: John Stafford on 31 Dec 2009 12:34 In article <hhib670e19(a)news3.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > 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. Since we are writing in a setting that permits science, please note that it is possible to induce the experience of seeing red even in a blind person. It is done using (get this) inductive magnetics. > 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. The following link shows an interesting interpretation, and test of inductive reasoning. It is purely visual. No science required. And it is easy. http://www.shldirect.com/inductive_reasoning.html
From: John Stafford on 31 Dec 2009 12:37
In article <hhian61d4f(a)news3.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > John Stafford wrote: > > Shouldn't we keep mathematic's proof by induction separate from > > inductive reasoning? > > It's the only thing I know which has been used to lead to knowledge. Knowledge of Natural Numbers, and what else? > >The subject is inductive reasoning which is not > > particularly rigorous except in special cases, IMHO. > > So you're saying that inductive reasoning is not the method > used in math. I don't see how the not-math type of thinking > could lead to any knowledge without some form of rigorous > method, especially in science. Inductive reasoning can occur in math, but in math the term 'inductive proof' is most common and entirely different that that used in philosophy which is 'inductive reason' (note - no claim of proof). |