Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 2 Jan 2010 19:32 On Jan 3, 12:53 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > On Jan 1, 8:20 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > No matter what the route, arrival at a "correct " premise is to > arrive at possession of knowledge . Complete rubbish, but what can one expect for you? Arriving at a correct premise might e a lucky thing and not be a case of knowing anything. Arriving at the *possession of knowledge* is plain bad language. > IMO, any view that is correct is, by definition, knowledge. Please stop this. Shut up if you do not know the least thing.
From: John Stafford on 2 Jan 2010 19:34 In article <243fe1c0-6252-4582-a1a1-8d0d391a8465(a)h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldoraz(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 3, 12:51�am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > > > Well, now I'm considering that I don't know when I'm using > > inductive reasoning when I'm thinking about a problem. > > Neither does Stafford. He just waves his hand to websites and to > Scientific Method. You are so gullible! You are now securely stuck in the corner, bellowing insanely. Earlier you spoke of this groups as comprised of 'debate' which suggests to me that you do not understand what a discussion is. You have given other evidence that you believe conversation, perhaps even life, is a battle to be won or lost. It is not that way. Pity you do not understand how to understand, or how to learn. Consider seeking professional help.
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 2 Jan 2010 19:53 On Jan 3, 2:27 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > In article > <247354ca-0913-4639-a138-d2db6bcb8...(a)e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, > Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Your contributions have been obscure shitty little statements like > > "Deduction depends on induction" > > I never wrote that. > I never said you did. > > "induction is well known to be used to gain knowledge". > > I never wrote that. > I never said you did > > This sort of limp nonsense. > > > By definition, induction does not pretend to guarantee a truth. > There is no definition of induction, certainly not one you have ever outlined. So who would know. You are talking through your hat as usual. At least dorayme and I have laid out one possible form. > > It is not just that they > > are not deductive, it is that they do not seem to have any *reasoning > > power*, there seems not even a *weak* force between the premises and > > the conclusion. > > If there were no deductive properties and also not a weakness in the > premises, there would be no probability possible, so the argument would > not even be induction. It would be nonsense. You see, a probability of > zero is still a probability, a statement of falsehood. > This is a completely obscure followup to the paragraph you are quoting. The task is to identify a form of reasoning that is not deductive but which exhibits reasoning force, that means lifting the probability to the conclusion to over 50% > > "Reasoning power? I refer to the power that avoids The Gambler's > > Fallacy. You see, no matter how many times a penny comes up tails, it > > does not follow in any way at all that it will come up tails on the > > next throw. It is not even probable! Nor is the likelihood of heads > > any better. There is no reasoning connection between the premise data > > and the conclusion. > > False. If a coin comes up tails a hundred times in a row, then it is > proper induction to state that it will come up tails on the 101th toss. > If a coin comes up tails a hundred times in a row, then it is likely to come up tails on the 101th toss. But this is different to that there is "a proper induction". The latter is an obscure thing and you will never, because you are one of Plato's deep-in-the-cave men always playing with shadows. > Why? Because we know from hard-science and statistics that 100 tails in > a row indicates that the coin is probably not a fair coin and/or the > toss is not a fair toss. > That is irrelevant to the problem of induction. Sensible curiosity about induction starts with accepting that these are likelihoods. You, in your philosophical naiveté, seem to think it is denying that scientists and mathematicians do a good job. > > "Some people say that there is a more sophisticated idea of induction > > that does not involve the above simplistic patterns." > > Attribution confusion. I did not write that. Never said you did. > > > OK. I am > > listening. What are these more sophisticated ideas that identify > > something aptly to be called induction? > > > > "That scientist X thinks up one pattern and scientist Y thinks up > > another contrary pattern can be described as both of them inducing > > different things from the data. But there is nothing in this kind of > > psychological induction to say the least thing about whether one is > > good *reasoning* and the other bad. > > Let's sort this out. Induction does not pretend to produce a perfect > truth, only a probability. > This is irrelevant. No one is seeking certainty. That is your confusion. dorayme and I are actually seeking mere probability, reasoning power, logical force. > > "It is just a psychological trick that trained and gifted scientists > > get up to! The testing of theories is the main game but that game is > > a game of deduction." > > Who wrote that? Not me. > Never said you did. (Have you taken your pills today?) This truth was written, I think by dorayme, with its usual brilliant pithyness. > What you are trying to say is quite simple. You are saying that > induction does not tell us whether a posit is reasonable thinking, and > my response is that inductive reasoning does not pretend to issue a > truth, but only a likelihood. > No, I am saying we have yet to identify this beast of induction. And when we do, I am not wanting or expecting to find more than liklihood. > What would the world be like if there were no inductions? We do not know because no one here so far has identified this beast. Except by dorayme and I. In the interpretation of it as being a mere name to label a psychological task to leap to possible patterns, we would be lost without it. On this pattern recognition and leaping to possible theories our lives and science depend. Very important. But it is not logical reasoning.
From: Michael Gordge on 2 Jan 2010 19:56 On Jan 2, 10:37 pm, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > I understood what he meant. You understood this? "Certainty is a catch-all word that expresses both a continuous range and different flavors." And you understood what he means by "axiomatic certainty" when he says he doesn't even know a defintion of certainty that would convey the meaning.................? "I don't know of a definition of the word that would convey the meaning completely or distinctly,..." Ewe Kantians are a laugh a minute. MG
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 2 Jan 2010 20:08
On Jan 3, 11:29 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > In article > <f78e048c-6e96-4a80-bc56-a15b5292b...(a)a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, > Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 3, 12:42 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > > > 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. > > > Hang on! I thought you said you were not going top bother with me any > > more? > > > Anyway, never mind, I am used to you usenet guys acting like > > hypocrites. > > > But on now to a more serious matter: humour! To say you are corny, you > > little ignorant jerk, is to criticise your sense of humour. It is to > > complain about its crudeness. That is what corny means, you little > > jerk. It is not evidence of a lack of humour. Not only your humour is > > wanting but your logic. Apply the Scientific Method to investigate > > your logical skills. > > Bluster, bluster. Raging insane nonsense. Aldoraz is once again backing > into a corner spewing insults rather than contributing to the subject. > Pity. But of course, the person she is replying to is contributing! You are quite a funny little scrambled egg! Your description, like all your recent capital letter shouting indicates a jumbled mind that is bent on meanness rather than logic. You see, the difference between you and me is that between the lines of the most foul-mouthed personal insults are actual real points in my case. Plus i do dirty better than you - is that what is bothering you, you little pipsqueak? In your case, it is almost always *just* the insults or some weak motherhood statement. |