Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: PD on 5 Jan 2010 10:20 On Jan 4, 3:31 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > 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 Please reread what I wrote about focusing on the definition of animal, after you've proposed zebra as an example of a spotted animal.
From: PD on 5 Jan 2010 10:21 On Jan 4, 3:37 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > 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. No. Where did you get the idea that axiomatic certainty requires the integration of sensory evidence? > > MG
From: PD on 5 Jan 2010 10:22 On Jan 5, 7:56 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > 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. I don't have one, either. That's why I asked. > > How about what goes up, must come down? > > /BAH > > /BAH
From: dorayme on 5 Jan 2010 15:44 In article <hhvg6d01jb8(a)news7.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > > This interpretation, or even as a question on its own terms, is > > something that seems to escape almost all of you. > > > > It's not escaping me. The problem is identifying which > conclusions were based on induction. I'm beginning to > think that a rule of thumb is: if induction is used to > create this conclusion, then more work has to be done > to check it. The first problem is to understand what is meant by induction. Take a look at all the uses of this word and now take a look at a typical scientific problem that is absolutely raging at the moment about the climate, scientists are at loggerheads. Now try to identify the *Scientific Method* and also, most importantly, *induction* in this particular context. I think you might find this a sobering exercise if you really carried it out in earnest. I have and fail to see a clear and useful Scientific Method. I also fail to see what are usefully to be called inductions that can be see to solve the problem of induction -- dorayme
From: Michael Gordge on 5 Jan 2010 16:19
On Jan 5, 11:11 pm, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > Not for you; it would be a waste of your time. Blaming me for your problems? typical behaviour of a losing socialist. MG |