Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: M Purcell on 4 Jan 2010 09:51 On Jan 4, 6:27 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > 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? Are you really trying to watch yourself think without success? > >> 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. A difference between survival and survival?
From: PD on 4 Jan 2010 11:49 On Jan 3, 8:26 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > 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.". Yes, that's a good one for math. How about for physics?
From: John Stafford on 4 Jan 2010 15:13 In article <hhstav113hv(a)news3.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > 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. What is introspection in this conversation? Is it thinking (reasoning), or pure thinking without the senses other than the sense of consciousness? Reasoning includes premises, concepts, and IMHO that is not pure introspection.
From: John Stafford on 4 Jan 2010 15:15 In article <hhst96013hv(a)news3.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > 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? No. Induction results only in a likelihood, for better or worse. It is Deduction (when the argument is valid and sound) that guarantees a fact.
From: John Stafford on 4 Jan 2010 15:16
In article <hhst3g913hv(a)news3.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > 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. That's rather clever! |