Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: John Stafford on 4 Jan 2010 15:20 In article <3696af78-81d5-4fc7-b1dd-765320b57ebb(a)34g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>, M Purcell <sacscale1(a)aol.com> wrote: > 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? My take is that we have a great deal of automatic thinking of the type that helps keep us alive long enough to think _better_. That thing over there ate my children. That thing over there killed my cave mate. That thing over there can hurt me, too WHEW! It went away. Now how can I keep from being hurt. (think, think) - distance, make distance; RUN AWAY. No. That's what my mate did. (think, think).
From: M Purcell on 4 Jan 2010 15:41 On Jan 4, 12:20 pm, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.net> wrote: > In article > <3696af78-81d5-4fc7-b1dd-765320b57...(a)34g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>, > M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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? > > My take is that we have a great deal of automatic thinking of the type > that helps keep us alive long enough to think _better_. > > That thing over there ate my children. > That thing over there killed my cave mate. > That thing over there can hurt me, too > > WHEW! It went away. Now how can I keep from being hurt. (think, think) - > distance, make distance; RUN AWAY. No. That's what my mate did. (think, > think). Reminds me of a MASH episode in which someone askes a Korean why the women walk ahead of the men, land mines was the answer.
From: dorayme on 4 Jan 2010 16:01 In article <hhst3g913hv(a)news3.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > M Purcell wrote: > > 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. > Your answer seems irrelevant to what Purcell is saying. True, it is not clear what Purcell is trying to say! But why not make a constructive guess instead of just launching into these questionably relevant replies? Let me guess why you don't do this: you have as little clue about doing philosophy as he does! You are Mr. Science-Man and worship at some imagined Scientific-Method God which you think is some sort of secret knowledge that only you and a few others know about - (in fact, the secret has been out for hundreds of years...) Here is an intelligent interpretation, it is may be too sensible for you both, but I am always as daring as I am obnoxious: Purcell (as touched by dorayme's magic wand): "The problem of induction is to give good reasons why inductive reasoning is rationally to be relied on. It is no use *just* identifying what induction is and pointing out that it has proved wildly successful in ordinary human life and science in the past. There is the original problem popping up: why is there reason to suppose it will be *a method* that is to be relied on in the future." This interpretation, or even as a question on its own terms, is something that seems to escape almost all of you. -- dorayme
From: dorayme on 4 Jan 2010 16:08 In article <hhst96013hv(a)news3.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > John Stafford wrote: > > 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. > > > > I had quite a number of brothers and sisters and two parents; I learned > early on how to ignore the noise. > How come you ignore everything of value? Your brothers have scarred you so badly that you don't even understand the expression throwing the baby out with the bath water. It has turned you into a completely content free zone. Your posts are good evidence of your ignorance. Fancy stepping into Stafford's deep cave and playing with his silly shadows! -- dorayme
From: dorayme on 4 Jan 2010 16:15
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. You go to the library to look up a website? My god, how do you get your posts here, by carrier pidgeon? > >> 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, It is not called inductive reasoning by anyone, at least not by anyone much in any peer revieed literature. You are just following an idiot guide in Stafford and using his silly half-baked words and slippery slidey vacuities. > >> 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. > Marshall could not have been more right. You are an exceedingly naive and ignorant man. -- dorayme |