Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: John Stafford on 31 Dec 2009 23:26 In article <9657e42c-c228-4a34-9037-6454f24df401(a)e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldoraz(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 1, 4:34�am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.net> wrote: > > 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. Inductive reasoning has many different presentations, or forms. The link demonstrated a very good example of one. Imagine an experiment without language and there you have the best presentation in that link. Humans use such inductive reasoning with their perception every day.
From: John Stafford on 31 Dec 2009 23:29 In article <a15b9aa2-3cbe-43f7-b66a-bb1be34f414a(a)d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldoraz(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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! How uninteresting it is that you snipped so much. My style of expression is to be economical. I am sure that those who wish to post word-salads of confusion would be unhappy with concise summary. Perhaps you are one. I stand by what I wrote. Show me I am wrong.
From: John Stafford on 31 Dec 2009 23:31 In article <6e8afd51-983f-429e-8c8f-8d77fbb99492(a)o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldoraz(a)gmail.com> wrote: > You are unaware of the history of Stafford's rude following of me. > Please inform yourself before getting heavy with a poor defenceless > creature like me.... Defenceless? (sic) Stop posing and return to philosophizing. No excuses, no innuendo, get back to business.
From: John Stafford on 31 Dec 2009 23:37 In article <fb2b61e8-be79-496f-8cb8-a721d2d464a1(a)u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, M Purcell <sacscale1(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Dec 31, 12:04�pm, David Bernier <david...(a)videotron.ca> wrote: > > jmfbahciv 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. > > > > >> 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. > > > > The statistician George Box is given as the originator of the saying: > > �All models are wrong, but some are useful�. > > > > Perhaps model should be qualified by "statistical model". > > > > There is no Theory of Everything as of yet. �So I'd suggest what > > one arrives at in science is an approximation to perfect, certain > > knowledge, but not the thing itself. > > Sometimes approximations are good enough and necessary to arrive at > timely decisions. Even if our idealized mathematical models were > accurate, the measurements used to verify them are imprecise. Science > is practiced by imperfect human beings with limited prior knowledge > and imagination. And the standard to which both are compared is a > nature knowable by virtue of our limited senses, thus the Uncertainty > Principle and an Universe expanding beyond our powers of observation. > I believe our knowledge is based on comparisons with ourselves and > fundamentally anthropomorphic. The human being navigates life largely by the process we call Inductive, and most often at an automatic behavior level. Induction at the highly focused and critical level (not automatic), is how one builds towards a thesis. Induction does lead to knowledge in that it is shown to be reasonable (to use Patricia's term) or it does not weather scientific methodology. Regardless, each outcome does lead to knowledge. It is truly that simple.
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 1 Jan 2010 00:11
On Jan 1, 3:26 pm, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > In article > <9657e42c-c228-4a34-9037-6454f24df...(a)e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, > Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jan 1, 4:34 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.net> wrote: > > >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. > > Inductive reasoning has many different presentations, or forms. The link > demonstrated a very good example of one. > > Imagine an experiment without language and there you have the best > presentation in that link. > > Humans use such inductive reasoning with their perception every day. I can see you are not the slightest but aware of or touched by the problem of induction. You are like my mother, she would dismiss any complicated problem with a wave of her hand and say something down to earth. God bless her! What are you doing here John? You are a simple soul. Are you sure you would not be more comfortable in the basketweaving class? Or how about adopting me? I need your simple non-intellectual common sense. I promise to keep my room tidy and eat my greens. |