Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 3 Jan 2010 09:22 M Purcell wrote: > 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. Right. However, you get to sell the stuff that does work. If you have to go through the process of finding out what doesn't work each time, you'll never ship a product. :-) >Do you consider all inductive conclusions > as knowledge? No. Not any more. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 3 Jan 2010 09:24 Zinnic wrote: > On Jan 1, 8:20 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: >> Zinnic wrote: >>> On Dec 31, 8:30 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: >>>> John Stafford wrote: >>>>> In article >>>>> <e6657e15-0ffc-4904-a0c8-6c95f8f8b...(a)j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, >>>>> Zinnic <zeenr...(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. >>>> Am I getting this stuff or am I still not understanding what >>>> you're saying. >>> I am interested in how you reason to exclude "correct premise" from >>> your definition of knowledge. >> It's a hypothesis which hasn't been demonstrated to be "correct" >> enough times nor does it have a reasonable explanation other >> than a declaration of correctness. If I wasn't hip deep in >> philosophers' wordage, I'd provide an example. However, this >> tactic doesn't seem to work with those types. >> >> /BAH- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > No matter what the route, arrival at a "correct " premise is to > arrive at possession of knowledge . Not if you can't reproduce the "arrival" process. > IMO, any view that is correct is, by definition, knowledge. And you are wrong. What doesn't work is very important knowledge. Think about plumbing. If the plumber you call had to reinstall all pipes and fittings to fix a drip, you'ld still be using an outhouse. > In a > weaker sense widely held, but incorrect, views also may be included > as knowledge. Obviously, we need to define knowledge one way or > another.! :-) > Z that may be the key. It's possible everyone has been talking past each other because of different definitions. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 3 Jan 2010 09:26 PD wrote: > On Jan 1, 3:36 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: >> On Jan 2, 3:47 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> No, this is NOT the context. The context was that not being able to >>> breathe water is not an AXIOMATIC statement. >> You wanted an example of something that was certain, > > No. Please read what I specifically asked for. I asked for something > that was AXIOMATICALLY certain. > You ignored the adjective and provided something that was certain for > a wholly different reason. > The fact that you do not understand the meaning of axiomatic doesn't > alter what I asked for. > An axiomatically certain example is: "All parallel lines intersect at infinity.". /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 3 Jan 2010 09:28 Patricia Aldoraz wrote: > On Jan 3, 12:39 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: >> 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, > > You mean like you don't answer mine? > You are a waste of ASCII characters. You do not know anything about science and how work is done. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 3 Jan 2010 09:28
Michael Gordge wrote: > On Jan 2, 10:37 pm, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: >> I understood what he meant. > > But ewe'd prefer not to say for fear of sounding as stupid as PD. > > MG I just posted an example. /BAH |