Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 6 Jan 2010 08:24 M Purcell wrote: > On Jan 5, 5:54 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: >> 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. > > Paid by whom to do what kind of thing? the company who hired me and to be able to watch how people do things which included how they did their thinking when solving their problems. Often, we hadn't shipped yet, so I used myself as the guinea pig in anticipation of how our customers would act and think. > >>>>>> 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. > > How did you arrive at this conclusion? Your inability to think long term is clear from the nonsense you type. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 6 Jan 2010 08:27 dorayme wrote: > 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. What you're reading and seeing about this topic has nothing to do with science but politics. Thus, right away, your example is a very bad one. >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 > Since the Scientific Method is not used w.r.t. this topic, your discussion is an attempt at smoke and mirrors. Did you really believe that this sleight of ASCII English would work? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 6 Jan 2010 08:28 Michael Gordge wrote: > 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. > Oh, man! Whoosh! /BAH
From: J. Clarke on 6 Jan 2010 08:36 jmfbahciv wrote: > dorayme wrote: >> In article <hhsu7812h0k(a)news5.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> >> wrote: >> >>> Patricia Aldoraz wrote: >>>> On Jan 4, 1:29 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: >>>>> Patricia Aldoraz wrote: >>>>>> On Jan 3, 12:51 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: >>>>>>> Well, now I'm considering that I don't know when I'm using >>>>>>> inductive reasoning when I'm thinking about a problem. >>>>>> Neither does Stafford. He just waves his hand to websites and to >>>>>> Scientific Method. You are so gullible! >>>>> did you go to that site and do the test? I did. >>>>> >>>> Of course you did, because you have not seen tests like this before >>> That certainly is a leap of conclusion with no data. >>> >> >> It explains your naive enthusiastic words in regard to it. Have you >> got a better theory? >> >>>> and have no idea what the problem of induction is and so you would >>>> think *anything* might be relevant. Thus you will be misled by >>>> someone like Stafford who also shows breathtaking ignorance as >>>> well. >>>> >>> I'm trying to figure out what he's talking about. So far, he's >>> the only one among all the noise who has tried to have a >>> discussion. >>> >> >> You are either a lying little turdbag or you simply have not read the >> thread properly. Who said this: >> >> "In the context of a discussion on induction, it is a reasonable >> thing to ask what a piece of inductive reasoning looks like. What >> is it about it that specifically makes it appropriate to call it >> "inductive"? >> >> This argument: >> >> This A is B, >> This A is B, >> .... >> ----------------- >> All As are Bs >> >> or even >> >> This A is B, >> This A is B, >> .... >> --------------------- >> Probably As are Bs >> >> >> is, at least, some sort of recognizable pattern of an argument >> that can be called *inductive* to contrast it with a deductive >> argument like: >> >> This A is a B >> This A is a B >> --------- >> Some As are Bs >> >> "The idea here is that people think there are perfectly good >> arguments like the above that are not deductive and so let's call >> them inductive! >> >> "But they are not *good* arguments at all, they never are, no >> matter how many cases are piled up in the premises. It is not >> just that they are not deductive, it is that they do not seem to >> have any *reasoning power*, there seems not even a *weak* force >> between the premises and the conclusion. >> >> "Reasoning power? I refer to the power that avoids The Gambler's >> Fallacy. You see, no matter how many times a penny comes up >> tails, it does not follow in any way at all that it will come up >> tails on the next throw. It is not even probable! Nor is the >> likelihood of heads any better. There is no reasoning connection >> between the premise data and the conclusion. >> >> "Some people say that there is a more sophisticated idea of >> induction that does not involve the above simplistic patterns. >> OK. I am listening. What are these more sophisticated ideas that >> identify something aptly to be called induction? It is no use >> merely pointing to the various things scientists do because they >> do too many things! The inductive bit gets lost in the haze! >> >> "Some people have thought to say that scientists *induce* things >> by thinking up patterns that the data in the premises of so >> called inductive arguments suggest to their minds. But the >> trouble with this is that this does not make for any actual >> argument. Patterns are sometimes ten a penny. Any finite set of >> data points, any number of so called inductive premises likely >> fit an infinite number of possible patterns. It is often a >> remarkable achievement for humans to even think of one! But that >> act of thinking up a pattern, a possible theory, is not any kind >> of persuasive *argument* in itself. That may well be called part >> of a man's efforts to think through a scientific problem, it >> might even loosely called reasoning. But that bit in itself is >> not any persuasive forceful reasoning. >> >> "That scientist X thinks up one pattern and scientist Y thinks up >> another contrary pattern > > They don't think up patterns; they think of hypotheses which may > cause those patterns. > >> can be described as both of them >> inducing different things from the data. But there is nothing in >> this kind of psychological induction to say the least thing about >> whether one is good *reasoning* and the other bad. > > Resolving the two is the job of the Scientific Method. That's > why the Scientific Method was created. > >> >> "It is just a psychological trick that trained and gifted >> scientists get up to! The testing of theories is the main game >> but that game is a game of deduction." >> >> That, to me, looks like someone trying to explain things and set up >> the terms of a discussion, someone who is rolling up sleeves and >> having a go. What does it look like to you, like some idiot >> trolling? If it does, you are not that much different to that crazed >> Gordge. >> > > and you were just starting to have a decent discussion. > > Dammit. > <snip> > > /BAH FWIW, I think that everyone interested in this topic might want to read some Hume and some Popper--they both had goes at the question of the validity and utility of inductive reasoning, and Popper I understand discusses it specifically in the context of the scentific method. I don't know their work beyond that so can't suggest any readings--they're on my list but there's a lot in front of them.
From: M Purcell on 6 Jan 2010 09:29
On Jan 6, 5:24 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > M Purcell wrote: > > On Jan 5, 5:54 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > >> 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. > > > Paid by whom to do what kind of thing? > > the company who hired me and to be able to watch how people > do things which included how they did their thinking when > solving their problems. Often, we hadn't shipped yet, so > I used myself as the guinea pig in anticipation of how > our customers would act and think. And you assumed everybody thinks like you do? > >>>>>> 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. > > > How did you arrive at this conclusion? > > Your inability to think long term is clear from the nonsense > you type. What is your reasoning to support this conclusion? |