Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: John Stafford on 1 Jan 2010 21:19 In article <ef8efe56-8b7e-46f9-866f-3b0a364927c0(a)a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldoraz(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 2, 12:45�pm, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > jmfbahciv is not a man. > > > > He must be a man. A woman would not be such a jerk. He is like you, > superficial and ignorant and bombastic. You are drunk, aren't you. Go to bed.
From: John Stafford on 1 Jan 2010 21:22 In article <7430abac-6232-444e-bdbf-990bf47805cf(a)j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldoraz(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 2, 12:41�pm, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > In article > > <f0d14326-ed6b-4bc4-ad89-98d9ff958...(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, > > �Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(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. > > You are supposed to read my brief and concise remarks as meaning that > no one doubts that scientists often make compelling cases. If you would write more concisely there would be fewer arguments. Work on that. > You > autistic, over literal minded clod! You call for conciseness but > refuse to appreciate it when it is delivered. You humbug! Concise > enough for you? I'm doing a drawing of you backing into the corner insanely shouting obscenities. I may actually make a few bucks from this one. Thanks for the inspiration. > [... snip more of Patricia Aldoraz resorting to expressing herself from her reptilian brain stem...]
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 1 Jan 2010 21:24 On Jan 2, 1:18 pm, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > I understand the problem perfectly. And the evidence for this is?
From: John Stafford on 1 Jan 2010 21:24 In article <a1065753-af31-4ceb-b0ee-7ff1900b644a(a)c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldoraz(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 2, 12:35�pm, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > In article > > <2248f623-b121-43e8-8dab-2d0577a69...(a)u41g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, > > �Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 2, 4:53�am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > What is uncommon about it in relation to the problem of induction in > > > philosophy? > > > > It demonstrates that if you accept the test, then you presume that there > > is a specific final image to choose. > > What is important about this? Brief enough for you? > > > That's the uncertain nature of > > inductive reasoning - you have no reason to presume that the sequential > > pattern will continue, but you make your best estimate based upon the > > evidence. > > > > What is the uncertain nature of what exactly? Brief enough for you? It clearly demonstrates an important nature of inductive reasoning.
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 1 Jan 2010 21:24
On Jan 2, 1:19 pm, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > You are drunk, aren't you. Go to bed. Get fucked! |