Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: Michael Gordge on 4 Jan 2010 02:23 On Jan 4, 10:39 am, Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: Qualifying off topic utterly senseless garbage snipped, stay on subject if you can. > > Can you be certain of anything? > Absolutely certain? No, of course not. There you go again, pretending that preceeding certain with the adjective absolutely changes anything about the meaning of certain, you still haven't even explained how the adjective axiomatic changed the meaning of certainty. You need to clear this up, are you saying that you are absolutely uncertain or absolutely certain that you cant ever be absolutely certain? MG
From: Michael Gordge on 4 Jan 2010 03:16 On Jan 4, 8:42 am, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Why is Stafford and Zinnic not "conversing" with you - Because they prefer and feel right at home "conversing" with like minded leftist Kantian cockheads like ewe and if ewe had an honest bone in your body ewe would admit you love it and would have it no other way. MG
From: jmfbahciv on 4 Jan 2010 09:27 M Purcell wrote: > On Jan 3, 6:48 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: >> John Stafford wrote: >> >> <snip --piggy-backing another post> >> >> I got to the library and looked up that induction-reasoning >> web site. I had planned to watch myself think while doing >> the test. Didn't happen. I popped out the answer to each >> without thinking. > > You believe thinking is a physical activity unnecessary for answering > questions? Are you really trying to be ignorant? > >> If you call the process for finding those solutions >> inductive reasoning, then I have to conclude that >> inductive reasoning is in the hardware. I would >> not use the word reasoning at all for that kind >> of brain processing. > > The generalization of this test to all inductive reasoning is > inductive reasoning. Apparently you are still not thinking. There is a huge difference between conscious thinking and automated thinking. One plans your survival the other ensures you survive to carry those plans. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 4 Jan 2010 09:30 John Stafford wrote: > In article <hhq9v3027u2(a)news3.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> > wrote: > >> John Stafford wrote: >> >> <snip --piggy-backing another post> >> >> I got to the library and looked up that induction-reasoning >> web site. I had planned to watch myself think while doing >> the test. Didn't happen. I popped out the answer to each >> without thinking. >> >> If you call the process for finding those solutions >> inductive reasoning, then I have to conclude that >> inductive reasoning is in the hardware. I would >> not use the word reasoning at all for that kind >> of brain processing. > > Of course, that is only one example of inductive reasoning, I realize that. > but it is > wise to realize that we construct our reality from senses. In the case > of that particular example, the premise is what makes it induction - > that the last frame will follow the others in pattern when we cannot > know that will be the case. It took some of my thinking to check my first choice just to make sure it wasn't a trick ;-). > It's the induction rule there. > Does induction always mean that the answer is reproducible? > I've a lot of examples of how we construct our reality through > induction. Perhaps in some other place without *Aldoraz I'll post some > examples. > > *Aldoraz AKA FaSoLa I had quite a number of brothers and sisters and two parents; I learned early on how to ignore the noise. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 4 Jan 2010 09:31
Marshall wrote: > On Jan 3, 6:48 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: >> John Stafford wrote: >> >> <snip --piggy-backing another post> >> >> I got to the library and looked up that induction-reasoning >> web site. I had planned to watch myself think while doing >> the test. Didn't happen. I popped out the answer to each >> without thinking. >> >> If you call the process for finding those solutions >> inductive reasoning, then I have to conclude that >> inductive reasoning is in the hardware. I would >> not use the word reasoning at all for that kind >> of brain processing. > > Using introspection like this as a technique to > discover the way the mind works in not a valid > technique. Your subjective experience of what > goes on inside your head is not a guide to what > actually goes on inside your head. > > you are wrong. /BAH |