Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: M Purcell on 1 Jan 2010 09:49 On Dec 31 2009, 8:37 pm, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > 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. I was simply trying to move on to a definition of knowledge although I'm sure that has also been endlessly debated. Although a critical compairson of inductive conclusions with observations does determine thier validity, I doubt the invalidity of an inductive conclusion would be considered knowledge.
From: M Purcell on 1 Jan 2010 11:11 On Jan 1, 6:49 am, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Dec 31 2009, 8:37 pm, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > > > > > > M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > I was simply trying to move on to a definition of knowledge although > I'm sure that has also been endlessly debated. Although a critical > compairson of inductive conclusions with observations does determine > thier validity, I doubt the invalidity of an inductive conclusion > would be considered knowledge. Correction: . . . I doubt an invalid inductive conclusion would be considered knowledge. I would also like to add that the predictive ability of science is due to the experimental requirement of repeatability, there are no exceptions.
From: John Stafford on 1 Jan 2010 12:36 In article <hhkvd902ahq(a)news5.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > 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. > > Yes, I can see that. But it's used as a tool. It cannot be [I don't > know how to phrase this] the proof. Inductive reasoning makes no claim whatsoever that a proof is made. That's the role of deductive reasoning when the argument is valid and sound. But now we must ask, from where do the premises of deductive reasoning occur? > IOW, if I can state that "x > was produced by using inductive reasoning, then x has to be true.", > then I'm saying that the only "proof" I need is the fact I used > inductive reasoning. Again, inductive reasoning does not lead to proof: a well formed inductive argument only demonstrates a likelihood.
From: John Stafford on 1 Jan 2010 12:44 In article <hhktlb427l2(a)news5.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > 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. Exactly. That is the role of science.
From: John Stafford on 1 Jan 2010 12:48
In article <hhktf2327l2(a)news5.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > 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. Yes. Inductive reasoning is necessary to navigate ordinary reality which is a construction of our senses. It is quite handy, but it is not science. |