Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 2 Jan 2010 08:39 Patricia Aldoraz 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? > Since you won't answer the question, I'll have to assume that you know nothing about it. Thus, any posts directed to you have to be written with that piece of ignorance in mind. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 2 Jan 2010 08:42 Patricia Aldoraz 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 And no humor on top of everything else. /BAH
From: Zinnic on 2 Jan 2010 08:33 On Jan 2, 12:17 am, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 2, 3:42 pm, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > Snip dorapatsy's A B 'profundities. I can't wait til he learns enough to move on to C. Once he knows his ABCs he will be able to convey so much more to us > You are a fool Stafford and considering your rudeness I will not miss > you if you stop following me about. You are not getting or > understanding the least thing so do what most people here do and > ignore me. > > At least Zinnic was starting to ask a few pertinent questions. You are > such a sad lot. Hey! No fair teach. Please please take that back and tell me that I, ZINNIC, am still at the bottom of your class.
From: jmfbahciv on 2 Jan 2010 08:51 John Stafford wrote: > In article <hhkvd902ahq(a)news5.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> > wrote: > >> John Stafford wrote: >>> In article <hhibq82e19(a)news3.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> John Stafford wrote: >>>>> In article >>>>> <e6657e15-0ffc-4904-a0c8-6c95f8f8b4cf(a)j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, >>>>> Zinnic <zeenric2(a)gate.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Dec 29, 6:00 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> [...] >>>>>> You have agreed in earlier posts that the longer a sequence of >>>>>> identical outcomes, then the stronger becomes your suspicion that >>>>>> there is an underlying causative factor for the repetition ( I am >>>>>> aware that the repetition is not itself causative). >>>>>> That is, as the repetition continues it is "reasonable" (your word in >>>>>> the above quote) for a mere suspicion to become an assumption and, >>>>>> eventually, a confident 'assertion' that the repetition will continue >>>>>> (despite the fact that certainty is not attained.) >>>>> In an inductive argument, the observation of a consistent behavior can >>>>> be a premise. The premise need only be strong enough that _if they are >>>>> true_, then the conclusion is _likely_ to be true. This is quite unlike >>>>> deductive reasoning where a _valid argument and sound conclusion_ are >>>>> guaranteed to be true. >>>>> >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>> So the answer to the title's question is no; however, inductive >>>> reasoning can lead to a correct premise. >>> Inductive reasoning can lead to practical and theoretical understanding, >>> which is knowledge. >> Yes, I can see that. But it's used as a tool. It cannot be [I don't >> know how to phrase this] the proof. > > Inductive reasoning makes no claim whatsoever that a proof is made. Ah! From trying to read this thread, I had been interpreting the opposite. > That's the role of deductive reasoning when the argument is valid and > sound. But now we must ask, from where do the premises of deductive > reasoning occur? Dreams or something. I don't know. I have no idea how I would come up with an idea to test...this is getting interesting. > >> IOW, if I can state that "x >> was produced by using inductive reasoning, then x has to be true.", >> then I'm saying that the only "proof" I need is the fact I used >> inductive reasoning. > > Again, inductive reasoning does not lead to proof: a well formed > inductive argument only demonstrates a likelihood. Well, now I'm considering that I don't know when I'm using inductive reasoning when I'm thinking about a problem. Perhaps I've just started to discover something I didn't know I didn't know. :-) Fun. /BAH
From: M Purcell on 2 Jan 2010 08:46
On Jan 2, 5:30 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > M Purcell wrote: > > On Dec 31 2009, 8:37 pm, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > >> M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > >>> Sometimes approximations are good enough and necessary to arrive at > >>> timely decisions. Even if our idealized mathematical models were > >>> accurate, the measurements used to verify them are imprecise. Science > >>> is practiced by imperfect human beings with limited prior knowledge > >>> and imagination. And the standard to which both are compared is a > >>> nature knowable by virtue of our limited senses, thus the Uncertainty > >>> Principle and an Universe expanding beyond our powers of observation. > >>> I believe our knowledge is based on comparisons with ourselves and > >>> fundamentally anthropomorphic. > >> The human being navigates life largely by the process we call Inductive, > >> and most often at an automatic behavior level. > > >> Induction at the highly focused and critical level (not automatic), is > >> how one builds towards a thesis. > > >> Induction does lead to knowledge in that it is shown to be reasonable > >> (to use Patricia's term) or it does not weather scientific methodology.. > > >> Regardless, each outcome does lead to knowledge. > > >> It is truly that simple. > > > I was simply trying to move on to a definition of knowledge although > > I'm sure that has also been endlessly debated. Although a critical > > compairson of inductive conclusions with observations does determine > > thier validity, I doubt the invalidity of an inductive conclusion > > would be considered knowledge. > > But that's the most valuable piece of knowledge...what doesn't work. I doubt you could sell it. Do you consider all inductive conclusions as knowledge? |