Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: Michael Gordge on 5 Jan 2010 01:59 On Jan 5, 1:49 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Yes, that's a good one for math. How about for physics? "Axiomatic certainty" is a contradiction in terms by your own defintion of axiomatic, its not possible to be certain of anything without evidence and yet you say axiomatic requires no evidence, how about you deal with that? MG
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 5 Jan 2010 02:37 On Jan 5, 5:59 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > its not possible to be certain of anything > without evidence > It happens on a daily basis, you need to get out more. But, then, everyone (but you) knows that. <g/2>
From: Michael Gordge on 5 Jan 2010 02:47 On Jan 5, 4:37 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 5, 5:59 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > > > its not possible to be certain of anything > > without evidence > > It happens on a daily basis, So what did ewe silly sheeple get up to in church on Sunday Pat? I know basket weaving wasn't it? She wasn't a virgin ewe know that dont ewe? MG
From: jmfbahciv on 5 Jan 2010 08:54 M Purcell 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? I am successful. I was paid very well to do this kind of thing. > >>>> 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? In business, it's called short-term and long-term. You appear to be limited to short-term only. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 5 Jan 2010 08:56
PD wrote: > 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? Beats the shitouta me :-). Seeing what they gave for examples is the reason I started to follow the thread. How about what goes up, must come down? /BAH /BAH |