Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: John Stafford on 3 Jan 2010 19:49 In article <5308bbca-8756-4ead-8359-d2c13a577327(a)a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldoraz(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Now we know for certain that you are not educated. Before you attack a discipline, it is required that you know the field that you are attacking. It is likely that you have not the inclination or the mental ability to do so. I would recommend that you find a usenet group that deals with variations of fantasy, roll-playing games.
From: John Stafford on 3 Jan 2010 19:55 In article <5308bbca-8756-4ead-8359-d2c13a577327(a)a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldoraz(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. I have, but your penchant for reacting without reading has led you away.
From: John Stafford on 3 Jan 2010 20:02 In article <2a9d0372-698d-4cd5-89d3-6373669243c7(a)h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldoraz(a)gmail.com> wrote: > The traditional problem of induction is to show how it is reasonable > to argue to the unknown from premises that are known and where there > is no deduction from these premises to the conclusion. Utterly incorrect, confused English, rubbish. Read up.
From: John Stafford on 3 Jan 2010 20:14 In article <4a071fb9-39e7-4a08-85a6-b1b6d131d72d(a)c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldoraz(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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? Oh, I will certainly explain the assertions - in fact, they are perfectly clear by first observance. No, not the shadows in the cave, but everyday phenomena. You really should consider study rather than wallowing your impressionistic, irresponsible association with surfing for sound-bytes and pulling little factoids from the 'net that you do not really understand. Philosophy is not a competition. It is collaboration. You have no understanding of the later. I'm sick of your impressionistic nonsense. Google is not your friend. You truly need to be educated and not browsing Google for intellectual-bytes. If you have any value at all, then it is that you evince a perfect example of an poseur who posts for effect, not for contributions. This is not a game. It it is real life. I suggest you find the same.
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 3 Jan 2010 20:35
On Jan 4, 11:44 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > In article > <de63a174-9b4b-470a-b940-0f7e5ee18...(a)f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, > Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(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. > > > > 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? > |