Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: John Stafford on 3 Jan 2010 17:17 In article <c3af987a-7232-4e90-850a-a212efe315cc(a)d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldoraz(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 4, 1:28�am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > > 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 > > Thank you for the insult. Now, what is the slightest bit of evidence, > that you possess that I do not know anything about science or how work > is done? What is the slightest bit of evidencethat you know what is > relevant and what is not relevant to the traditional and ongoing > offshoots of the philosophical problem of induction? Address the issue, fuckwit. Address the issue or shut up.
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 3 Jan 2010 17:57 On Jan 4, 9:08 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > PA, I can provide demonstrations of my assertions. with one or two > common images. I'll do that when I am back at work this week. > Sure, you will do something you call this but you will not quote and explain what your assertions were, you will not explain how the assertions actually are relevant to the problem of induction, you will just further chatter. Common images? You mean the shadows on the cave where you do your philosophy?
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 3 Jan 2010 18:37 On Jan 4, 9:16 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > Yah, sure someone like Stafford and a thousand brilliant scholars all > around the world. Do you think you are some kind of messiah, FaSoLa? > Consider the odds. There are not a thousand brilliant scholars who understand the terms of the problem of induction and its modern variants who you could cite. And you sure don't show the slightest familiarity with the problem. If you did, you would have described it by now.
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 3 Jan 2010 18:38 On Jan 4, 9:17 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > > You are a waste of ASCII characters. You do not know anything > > > about science and how work is done. > > > > /BAH > > > Thank you for the insult. Now, what is the slightest bit of evidence, > > that you possess that I do not know anything about science or how work > > is done? What is the slightest bit of evidencethat you know what is > > relevant and what is not relevant to the traditional and ongoing > > offshoots of the philosophical problem of induction?
From: John Stafford on 3 Jan 2010 19:44
In article <de63a174-9b4b-470a-b940-0f7e5ee18c14(a)f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldoraz(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 4, 9:17�am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > > > > You are a waste of ASCII characters. �You do not know anything > > > > about science and how work is done. > > > > > > /BAH > > > > > Thank you for the insult. Now, what is the slightest bit of evidence, > > > that you possess that I do not know anything about science or how work > > > is done? What is the slightest bit of evidencethat you know what is > > > relevant and what is not relevant to the traditional and ongoing > > > offshoots of the philosophical problem of induction? Pathetic Aldoraz - you cannot even get the attributes in order. That is reason enough to put you away. |