Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: John Stafford on 1 Jan 2010 12:53 In article <2793877f-e997-42f4-8b51-89f7eacb01d6(a)k23g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldoraz(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. PA, if my posts show you nothing, then you cannot learn or you are not trying at all. > Pointing to a website that has some sort of pattern recognition > test is not you showing any understanding. I consider that site an interesting and uncommon take on inductive reasoning. If you had been paying attention to the other posts you would know that I've a more inclusive perspective of what inductive reasoning is. > 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. I believe in an economy of words. Philosophy should not be a contest of who can be most verbose and obscure.
From: dorayme on 1 Jan 2010 16:20 In article <hhktsd527l2(a)news5.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > Exactly. Thus, there is no such thing as "truth". Hardly exact because many things are simply true. Among the many confusions you exhibit, the one between ontology and epistemology figures prominently in your 'philosophical' gropings... -- dorayme
From: dorayme on 1 Jan 2010 16:23 In article <hhku13627l2(a)news5.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > dorayme wrote: > > In article <hhian61d4f(a)news3.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> > > wrote: > > > >>> 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. > > > > He is not saying any such thing. If you had a single clue about > > philosophy, you would understand this. > > > Honey, the way you philosophers think is muddy, foggy, and > not logical from my point of view. A lot of this talk > reminds me of the humanities class which was a requirement > in college. Lots of nonsense, which is fun to yak about, > but won't put food on the table nor fix the plumbing :-). > That's funny, Mister O So Logical, I was thinking and seeing this very same quality in you. Inexactitude, sloppy use of words, sloppy thinking, ignorance about many distinctions which have been carefully honed over hundreds if not thousands of years and nests of misunderstanding. And, you know what, for *you* to come up with this accusation is laughable! -- dorayme
From: dorayme on 1 Jan 2010 16:28 In article <hhkud9029el(a)news5.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > >> The reason Patricia seems to be having difficulties > >> in this discussion is because she keeps dismissing all talk > >> about science and experiments, etc. From my point of view, > >> that activity is the basis of all knowledge. > >> > > > > The difficulties are all yours. > > Perhaps they are all mine; ... This > thread is posted in sci.physics and dismissing the > Scientific Method from the discussion as not important is > wrong. Period. There is no Period, you pompous authoritarian fool. No one has dismissed 'Scientific Method'. You are a posting and intellectual coward, show and don't merely say. Where is so called Scientific Method *dismissed*? Where exactly? You do not understand the issues at all, you have not a single clue about it and yet you publicly feel the right to parade your great ignorance. -- dorayme
From: dorayme on 1 Jan 2010 16:35
In article <hhkvd902ahq(a)news5.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > > Inductive reasoning can lead to practical and theoretical understanding, > > which is knowledge. > > Yes, I can see that. You see nothing but the truth that we have been successful in building theories about the world that has given us impressive predictive powers and that there are various common factors to the way various scientists work. You are no doubt capable of stuttering out some of these factors. This does not add up to understanding the problem of induction which is the main subject of this thread. You are a good example of a *superficial* and opinionated bore. -- dorayme |