Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: PD on 31 Dec 2009 18:15 On Dec 31, 3:32 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > On Jan 1, 3:50 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Certainty is a catch-all word that expresses both a continuous range > > and different flavors. > > Oh so by axiomatic certainty you mean "axiomatic expressing both > continuous range and different flavours? > > Are ewe drunk? > > The question remaining unanswered is - What meaning are you using for > certainty in YOUR slogan of "axiomatic certainty". > > > I don't know of a definition of the word that would convey the meaning > > completely or distinctly, > > So why the hell did you use a word that you cant explain the meaning > of distinctly and completely? > > > any more than one could do the same for > > "art" or "beauty". > > Art is the re-creation of reality. A word meaning anything has no > meaning, think about it. > > Beauty is a value judgement, where a thing or event is judged against > your own values. So beauty and morals are synonymous by your definition. So why the hell did you use a word that you can't explain the meaning of distinctly and completely? > > MG
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 31 Dec 2009 20:30 On Jan 1, 1:08 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > 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. > > 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! > I cannot eliminate something I am unsure is there to begin with. What I am pretty sure of is that no argument that really has the form of traditionally understood inductive arguments, the form of which has been given a number of times in this thread. > 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 have explained, it is that such a * form* of reasoning is hopelessly without any force. I just don't think there is a special form of *good* inductive reasoning that can be contrasted to good deductive reasoning. There is no logical procedures to gaining or expanding knowledge. It is a matter of dreaming up (that is a human pattern groping activity) general patterns and being unable to think of any better fit to all the data. This is an inability as much as an ability. Our limitations are a strength. The bit that checks to see if a pattern fits the data is a deductive bit. But that is only part of a human activity. There is no inductive bit of *reasoning* unless you merely are using this word to wave your hand towards "whatever the hell scientists do in general apart from deducing stuff"
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 31 Dec 2009 20:32 On Jan 1, 4:23 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.net> wrote: > Inductive reasoning can lead to practical and theoretical understanding, > which is knowledge. Such a wonderfully instructive and enlightening statement at this stage! Christ!
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 31 Dec 2009 21:59 On Jan 1, 4:34 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.net> wrote: > In article <hhib670...(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 It is not an interesting interpretation at all, there is no *interpretation*. It is an exercise in pattern recognition.
From: Michael Gordge on 31 Dec 2009 23:25
On Jan 1, 9:14 am, zzbunker <zzbun...(a)netscape.net> wrote: > For Kantians it's not too difficult. It's endless critiques of 3D > geomtery. Idiot, metaphysics does not equate to epistemology, I am asking the meaning, HOW does one distinguish certainty from anything else. MG |