Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 1 Jan 2010 19:48 On Jan 2, 1:08 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > Patricia Aldoraz 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! > > No, his name John. You are a corny simple-minded little jerk
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 1 Jan 2010 19:54 On Jan 2, 4:36 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > Again, inductive reasoning does not lead to proof: a well formed > inductive argument only demonstrates a likelihood. No one doubts that scientists make good cases for their conclusions. The thread is not about this. It is about identying what makes these cases good. Wj=hat is inductive reasoning and why is the inductive bit *reasoning*.
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 1 Jan 2010 20:08 On Jan 2, 9:46 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > In article <doraymeRidThis-CCD299.08503302012...(a)news.albasani.net>, > > dorayme <doraymeRidT...(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. > You go wrong immediately. Inductive skeptics like Hume (and count me in too) are not asking for certainty. They are asking for probability or some reason to believe on the basis of the data that is often paraded as the premises in so called inductive argument. Brief enough for you? > > Do you consider my assertion as inappropriate because I am criticizing > classic philosophers? How can I consider this when i have no idea what your criticisms are? Your thinking they are demanding deductive certainty is a superficial and ignorant interpretation. Brief enough for you? > Are you aware of how induction has been > reformulated over the centuries, especially as the science of logic and > linguistics has evolved? Induction has been "reformulated". So clear! Brief enough for you?
From: John Stafford on 1 Jan 2010 20:29 In article <8d587a0d-cbd3-4c4d-bb26-572ba990b271(a)35g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldoraz(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 2, 9:46�am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > In article <doraymeRidThis-CCD299.08503302012...(a)news.albasani.net>, > > > > �dorayme <doraymeRidT...(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. > > > > You go wrong immediately. Inductive skeptics like Hume (and count me > in too) are not asking for certainty. They are asking for probability > or some reason to believe on the basis of the data that is often > paraded as the premises in so called inductive argument. Brief enough > for you? You have not read enough of Hume. Go back to the books. Learn up. In the end, he recognized induction as a most useful method of acquiring knowledge. Learn up! > > Do you consider my assertion as inappropriate because I am criticizing > > classic philosophers? � > > How can I consider this when i have no idea what your criticisms are? > Your thinking they are demanding deductive certainty is a superficial > and ignorant interpretation. Brief enough for you? Read what I wrote. The issue is really quite straightforward. I made them perfectly clear.
From: John Stafford on 1 Jan 2010 20:41
In article <f0d14326-ed6b-4bc4-ad89-98d9ff9588c8(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldoraz(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 2, 4:36�am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > > Again, inductive reasoning does not lead to proof: �a well formed > > inductive argument only demonstrates a likelihood. > > No one doubts that scientists make good cases for their conclusions. That is not true. If scientists' cases were not doubted, then there would be no be science because science posits cases that must be replicable. But science does prevail, therefore people do doubt and science improves. > The thread is not about this. Of course. I know that. Do you actually read others' responses or do you just launch from some part of your personality that can only foster hate? That is an unhealthy POV and is not conducive to reason that leads to knowledge (the subject of this thread.) > It is about identying what makes these > cases good. Wj=hat is inductive reasoning and why is the inductive bit > *reasoning*. Please retype that in English. |