Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: Michael Gordge on 1 Jan 2010 16:36 On Jan 2, 3:47 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > No, this is NOT the context. The context was that not being able to > breathe water is not an AXIOMATIC statement. You wanted an example of something that was certain, I said that it is certain that you can not survive by breathing water, survive in space without wearing a space-suit etc, which you then claimed they were not examples of certainties, which you preceeded with the adjective axiomatic. I am still waiting for you to explain how preceeding certainty with axiomatic changes the meaning of certainty, which you are refusing to do. You wanted an example of a scientific certainty IS the context. MG
From: dorayme on 1 Jan 2010 16:44 In article <hhkvie12ahq(a)news5.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > It's a hypothesis which hasn't been demonstrated to be "correct" > enough times nor does it have a reasonable explanation other > than a declaration of correctness. What is the *it* of your sentence? The bits you quote I snipped because they do not help this mystery. Is it the proposition: Does inductive knowledge lead to knowledge? But never mind, you simply go on to say the most obscure and garbled thing about *it*. I guess it does not matter what *it* is, in that case. If you are going to talk vague garbled nonsense, what does it rally matter what it is about. > If I wasn't hip deep in > philosophers' wordage, I'd provide an example. However, this > tactic doesn't seem to work with those types. > Continue to show no humility, no desire to learn, no curiosity, continue to be a complete and utter prat, continue to exhibit your scrambled egg brain. -- dorayme
From: dorayme on 1 Jan 2010 16:50 In article <hhkvml22ahq(a)news5.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > John Stafford wrote: > > In article <hhib670e19(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. > > Kewl. I didn't know that. I'm finally learning something useful. > Jesus! Try inductive magnetics to see if it will deliver elementary knowledge about philosophy into your brain. You really are a silly card! > >> > >> 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 > > I'll try to get to the library to look at it. Not today (it's > closed) and not tomorrow (foot of snow is supposed to fall). > You will understand nothing whatever further by going to the trouble. Stafford himself does not understand what the traditional problem of induction is. -- dorayme
From: John Stafford on 1 Jan 2010 17:46 In article <doraymeRidThis-CCD299.08503302012010(a)news.albasani.net>, dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > You will understand nothing whatever further by going to the trouble. > Stafford himself does not understand what the traditional problem of > induction is. I understand what the so-called problem of induction is said to be, however I asserted earlier that induction is not intended to deliver a conclusion as a certainty. That's the task of a valid and sound deduction. Valid/invalid sound/unsound are technical requisites of deduction, not induction. Induction is weak compared to proper deduction, however it is practically useful and we use it all the time to navigate through everyday life. It is not knowledge, but does _lead toward knowledge_. Not all knowledge is made of true factoids because 'facts' and certainties owe their nature to the ability to conceive of contrasts or counterfactuals. Now if it seems strange to make that claim, then perhaps one has an impractical and unworkable concept of knowledge. As much as I value knowledge, I have learned that it is unwise to be perfectly confident in what we regard as knowledge. IMHO, the question posed in the subject of this thread should address knowledge first. IOW, I don't think the problem of induction is a real problem when properly regarded as above. Do you consider my assertion as inappropriate because I am criticizing classic philosophers? Are you aware of how induction has been reformulated over the centuries, especially as the science of logic and linguistics has evolved?
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 1 Jan 2010 19:43
On Jan 2, 1:03 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > The Scientific Method is not a handwave. I'll ask again. Do > you know anything about it? > Do you know what it is? How exactly does it relate to the problem of induction? |