Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: John Stafford on 1 Jan 2010 20:43 In article <e0794af7-3556-43ed-b9e9-56cca68b2000(a)e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldoraz(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 Come out of the corner, dorayme. We won't hurt you. Cool off. Have a rest. Then come back when you are a human being ready to get to the issues.
From: John Stafford on 1 Jan 2010 20:47 In article <5f0039a2-9e36-482a-ab18-218bd61202c3(a)r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldoraz(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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? If mathematics is considered a science, then it has to do with mathematic's particular, and different use of the term Inductive. It is used in a proof manner. Philosophy does not consider Inductive as a method of proof. Read up. Learn up.
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 1 Jan 2010 21:00 On Jan 2, 12:29 pm, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > In article > <8d587a0d-cbd3-4c4d-bb26-572ba990b...(a)35g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, > Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(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. > You are a superficial clod and do not understand what the problem is. 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? > > Read what I wrote. The issue is really quite straightforward. I made > them perfectly clear. The issue is anything but straightforward and you are a superficial clod.
From: John Stafford on 1 Jan 2010 21:05 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. He did finally acknowledge the utility if inductive reasoning.
From: John Stafford on 1 Jan 2010 21:18
In article <5dbfc7ad-9747-4845-8441-0831e12eda91(a)f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldoraz(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 2, 12:29�pm, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > In article > > <8d587a0d-cbd3-4c4d-bb26-572ba990b...(a)35g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, > > �Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(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) Name-dropping is not contributory. You are not Hume. You do not even understand what he has written. > 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. > > > You are a superficial clod and do not understand what the problem is. > Brief enough for you? I understand the problem perfectly. No more hand-waving, PA. It's not working for you. Apparently you are fostering an intellectual abscess rather than a thought. You are spewing hate and resentment rather than making considered responses. You could begin to contribute by making a claim, then write a supportive argument. You have muddled the whole thread with spewing insults and innuendo. Start again clean with your claim, then we can study your supportive argument. You know, we might not disagree after all, but you will not know until you get rid of this demon of yours. |