Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 1 Jan 2010 00:12 On Jan 1, 3:37 pm, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > In article > <fb2b61e8-be79-496f-8cb8-a721d2d46...(a)u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, > M Purcell <sacsca...(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: > > > ³All models are wrong, but some are useful³. > > > > 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. Deep!
From: John Stafford on 1 Jan 2010 00:29 In article <1be708b1-f1b1-4920-8289-3f552c52a9b6(a)b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldoraz(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > 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! Patricia, rather than just making such claims you would foster more support by giving specific examples of how my understanding of induction is not correct. I can assure you that your tactic to this moment is simple innuendo, no foundation, no counter-argument. I dearly hope you are not one who simply rants when she/he has come to the end of wit and wisdom. So, make your case. Or do not. > What are you doing here John? You are a simple soul. Are you sure you > would not be more comfortable in the basketweaving class? I am here for a few moments a day. I am well educated, and still an independent thinker. Credentials? Oxford, Princeton, the University of Chicago... and more. But I am not of any of them. I still think on my own. And you, Dear? You are stuck in some kind of cruel engram inflicted upon you that included the words "basketweaving class". Get over it. > Or how about adopting me? I need your simple non-intellectual common > sense. I promise to keep my room tidy and eat my greens. Adopt you? I'm afraid I am booked-up in the mansion.
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 1 Jan 2010 02:46 On Jan 1, 4:29 pm, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > In article > <1be708b1-f1b1-4920-8289-3f552c52a...(a)b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, > Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > Patricia, rather than just making such claims you would foster more > support by giving specific examples of how my understanding of induction > is not correct. > John, it is impossible to support the proposition that you show no understanding of the problem of induction because you simply show none. Pointing to a website that has some sort of pattern recognition test is not you showing any understanding. I have written thousands of my own words here saying what the problem is and what does *not* go to a solution and why. You seem to come in every now and then and make what seem like breathtakingly simplistic remarks like that induction leads to knowledge. Or that deduction depends on induction. You don't explain or analyse anything, you just come up with these obscure or facile things.
From: jmfbahciv on 1 Jan 2010 08:44 John Stafford wrote: > 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. sure. It can be used as a preliminary tool but the thinking style does not create the knowledge directly. Let me try to write this again... it may be a preliminary step before the hypothesis can be verified in the lab. The thinking style cannot verify the theory. /BAH /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 1 Jan 2010 08:47
John Stafford wrote: > 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? It's used as proofs for summations; IIRC, Diff. Eq. books use this a lot. > >>> 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). I see. You guys are talking about something very different. If there is no claim of proof, then the reasoning cannot verify the hypothesis nor a theory. /BAH |