Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: dorayme on 4 Jan 2010 16:19 In article <hhste4213hv(a)news3.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > John Stafford wrote: > > In article > > <1b8885d8-a268-4d2e-858b-dd864196f075(a)j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, > > Marshall <marshall.spight(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Jan 3, 6:48 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > >>> 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. > > > > So true. > > Not true. Or is this technique a rarity? I've always > thought everyone can do that. Oh yes, everyone is a walking science lab, who needs trained scientists with sophisticated equipmentment analytical techniques to investigate the brain when it is all there at every little fuckwits fingertips doing hocus pocus spooky introspection? -- dorayme
From: dorayme on 4 Jan 2010 16:22 In article <hhstil313hv(a)news3.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > Michael Gordge wrote: > > On Jan 3, 11:28 pm, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > > > >> I just posted an example. > > > > Try an example that deals with reality, sensory reality, you know, > > mind independent, reality is after all the only thing that matters in > > gaining knowledge. > > > ARe you kidding? No he is not kidding, he can't kid, he is a uniquely crazed person. That means everything he says is perfectly easy to accept. Nothing means anything. But what is you excuse? You seem to be so sensible? Did your many brothers and sisters kill everything off in you? -- dorayme
From: dorayme on 4 Jan 2010 16:29 In article <hhsu2202h0k(a)news5.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > Patricia Aldoraz 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. > > Stating a fact is an insult? > You have been asked time and again to produce evidence that PA does not understand this Scientific Method. You keep on repeating it as fact. Show the evidence or shut up. > >Now, what is the slightest bit of evidence, > > that you possess that I do not know anything about science or how work > > is done? > > Your answers in these posts show, not only an ignorance of subject > matter, Show the evidence for his. What do you know that she does not and how is it relevant to the subject of the philosophical problem of induction? > but also no curiosity nor desire to learn. > Who could she learn from in his usenet group. So far, no one says anything that analyses anything in detail. You are a fool who himself shows no philosophical curiosity. you might be fooling yourself and few others here but you are not fooling me not are you likely to fool PA. > > 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? > > I'm trying to learn the relevance. > You are? What quite would you like to know. Be specific. Ask a clear question. Come to a front desk here near me, young man. -- dorayme
From: Michael Gordge on 4 Jan 2010 16:31 On Jan 5, 1:42 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Well, let's tackle that last comment. > I asked for an example of something that *in physics* is regarded as > *axiomatically* certain, where "axiomatic"............ > based on "..........evidence"............... What meaning does "certainty" have and what meaning does "evidence" have in your silly slogans "axiomatic certainty" and "observational evidence"? MG
From: Michael Gordge on 4 Jan 2010 16:37
On Dec 31 2009, 3:55 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Well, for one thing, "axiom" means something very specific. It is a > statement that is *presumed* to be true without proof or evidence, > upon which derivations of other statements can be made. Oh soooo "axiomatic certainty" is a contradiction in terms because to be certain requires the non-contradictory identification and integration of sensory evidence. MG |