|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Induction and Science | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3712 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
nwr writes:
Thanks for the link. Panda writes:
No, that is not the definition of deductive reasoning. Well, that is the definition of deductive reasoning - it increases our knowledge.This is a quote from it: quote: nwr writes: Panda writes:
Who came up with that absurdity? It is refuted on just about every page of a mathematics book. By definition: you cannot make general/universal rules/laws using deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning moves from a general premise to a more specific conclusion. Method of reasoning from general to particular inference by reasoning from the general to the specific. reasoning from the general to the particular (or from cause to effect) inference in which the conclusion is of no greater generality than the premises. These are just some from the first page when googling "Deductive Reasoning Definition". Could you give some links describing what you think the definition is?If not, then: By definition: you cannot make general/universal rules/laws using deductive reasoning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3712 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Jon writes:
A guess can be an accurate prediction. There is, thus, no reason why 'guesses' and 'opinions' cannot be accurate predictionsAn opinion can be an accurate prediction. Jon writes:
A guess can create an accurate prediction. Science tends to favor those 'guesses' and 'opinions' that create accurate predictions...An opinion can create an accurate prediction. Maybe you need to sort out what you are trying to say.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3712 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
This is just to point out something to Modulous:
Jon writes:
But you are, again, dealing with two separate issues. Deduction says nothing about the actual truth of anything.Jon writes:
It is deductive not because the conclusion is true (its actual truth will hinge on the quality of the premises), but because it is true given the premises.Jon writes:
Thus, it is not required that deduction make 'necessarily true' conclusions, only that it make conclusions that are necessarily true given the premisesthis is, afterall, its definition.Jon writes: The deductive conclusion is more fully supported by the stated premises, but neither conclusion is more likely to be true, since the inductive leap is as improbable as the third premise in the deductive argument. This is Jon equivocating between logical truth and factual truth.It would appear that at least half of Jon's reply consists of this equivocation. Do you wonder if it is even worth trying to discuss anything with Jon? Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3712 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
nwr writes:
You agree with the definition but disagree with the explanation of the definition? It is not a quote from the definition. It is a quote from the commentary.Could you maybe post some links that give an explanation that you do agree with? nwr writes:
I provided several links. Provide a precise reference to the "definition" that you claim to be using.They all concur with my definition. So, do you have no links to any site advocating your definition then?I did previously ask for links. So far you have given me one link and then disagreed with it. Does nowhere else on the internet agree with your defintion of deductive reasoning?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3712 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
nwr writes:
I see no contradiction - it agrees with what I said. That sure seems to contradict what you have been claiming.If you think there is a contradiction then please point it out. So, no links to any sites that agree with your definition?Not one?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3712 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
nwr writes:
Oh really? It explicitly says "Everything in the conclusion of a valid deductive argument must also be contained in the premises." And that's just a way of saying that it produces nothing new.That directly contradicts what was implied by your question "What new information is deduced?" (Message 417) You mean that the reply I gave to the request: nwr writes: does not answer the question you inferred from a different sentence? Panda writes:
Provide a precise reference to the "definition" that you claim to be using. By definition: you cannot make general/universal rules/laws using deductive reasoning.If you want an answer to a question then you need to type that question in a post and not just expect me to guess what you want to know. You asked where my definition came from.I gave several links. The definition you chose from my links concurs with the definition I posted. If you think it contradicts my definition then please explain why. nwr writes:
In the link you provided, you disagreed with the explanation of the definition. WTF? I gave a link to a definition in an earlier post. Then in Message 529, I quoted from your link to support the point.That means that either the explanation is wrong or you don't understand the definition. I have no reason to think that the explanation is wrong. Why not post a link to a site that you agree with completely, instead?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3712 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
nwr writes:
You think that your questions are bullshit? Are we still on that bullshit.Well, regardless, your questions have been asked and answered. My questions have been evaded.
nwr writes:
I repeat: The reply you gave to that "by definition" claim did not support the claim.You claim that the definitions conflict? Well - as I have repeatedly asked - explain why. Stop making dumb assertions. nwr writes:
I gave you 5 links - pick one of them. Just give one link with a definition that actually supports your claim (if there is one). The definitions I saw in your links did not support your claim.If you are claiming that the definitions do not support my claim then - as I repeatedly ask - explain why. Stop making dumb assertions. nwr writes:
Pythagorus' theorem is a mathematical proof - it is called a theorem for a reason. The Pythagorus theorem is still a general principle that is derived by deductive reasoning.But in science you have theories not theorems. Clearly you don't understand the difference. Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. Remember: the thread subject is "Induction and Science". nwr writes:
That means that you must have failed to understand the definition, as there is no reason for me to think that the explanation is wrong. Quite so. But the definition is fine, even if the explanation is defective.Or can you justify why I should disagree with an explanation that accurately expounds deductive reasoning? So, one more time:
Can you post a link to any web page that gives a definition of deductive reasoning that you [completely] agree with? Considering how mind-bogglingly easy it is to post a link - I am left with the unavoidable conclusion that there is no-one else that defines deductive reasoning the way you do.It is as if you are arguing that cats can fly because you call the the feathered animals in your garden 'cats'. ----------------------- Just as an extra note: Please address the points I raise. Else these replies will just get longer due to me having to repeat myself.As an example: Panda writes:
In the link you provided, you disagreed with the explanation of the definition.That means that either the explanation is wrong or you don't understand the definition. I have no reason to think that the explanation is wrong. nwr writes:
which meant I had to repeat myself.
Panda writes:
Quite so. But the definition is fine, even if the explanation is defective. In the link you provided, you disagreed with the explanation of the definition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3712 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
nwr writes:
That means that you must have failed to understand the definition, as there is no reason for me to think that the explanation is wrong. Quite so. But the definition is fine, even if the explanation is defective.Or can you justify why I should disagree with an explanation that accurately expounds deductive reasoning? nwr writes:
I accept your inability to comply with my repeated request to provide a link as your tacit agreement that you are the only person in the known world that defines 'deductive reasoning' in the way that you do. Panda writes:
[complete and utter silence] So, one more time:
Can you post a link to any web page that gives a definition of deductive reasoning that you [completely] agree with? You need to realise that when you are at the stage when you think "It is not me that is wrong! It is everyone else that is wrong!" - then it is definitely you that is wrong. nwr writes:
You asked for links to definitions - I gave links. I don't think I have suggested that. Rather, I have said that what you claimed to be true by definition, isn't.You don't like the links? Then explain what is wrong with them. Be specific. nwr writes:
No. I am telling you that you are bringing in an off-topic subject. Are you denying that the Pythagorus result holds for ordinary physical triangles?I repeat: there is a difference between a theorem and a theory. Learn what it is and then get back on-topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3712 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
nwr writes:
I do suggest you try to construct a clear valid logical argument supporting your bare assertion.
Bullshit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3712 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
The explanation cannot be deduced from the definition. However, if you would like to try, I would be interested in seeing that.
It was your link.
You don't agree with what it says. I see no reason to justify what it says when you are the one that posted it. nwr writes:
Yes. I gave you a link the first time. There's no point in your repeated demands.But the webpage disagreed with your definition of deductive reasoning. Which is why I asked you to provide a link that you actually agreed with. But you are correct: "There's no point in your repeated demands."Repeatedly asking you for something that you haven't got (and seems to not exist) isn't going to produce results. Face it: it is not everyone else that is wrong.It is just you. p.s.It is good to see that you acknowledge that your comment regarding Pythagoras' Theorem was both incorrect and off-topic. Apology accepted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3712 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Stephen Push writes:
I realise that the link was not aimed directly at me, but thank you. Wesley C. Salmon. Rational Prediction. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 32, No. 2 (June 1981), pp. 115-125.It was a very interesting read. (I quite like how Mr. Salmon writes too.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3712 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
RADZ writes:
Could you give a real-world example of this, please?
Let's say we have tested all the elements in A and find that every one has the elements of B as well. Based on the evidence of A that is B, we deduce that all A is B. This predicts that any new A will also be B.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3712 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
I am having trouble tying your first sentence to your example.
quote: quote:Could you specify which aspect of the example is A and which one is B?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3712 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Straggler writes:
Your answers to this question suffer from a lack of context, as you weren't involved in the original conversation. Panda writes:
Do you disagree with the above? By definition: you cannot make general/universal rules/laws using deductive reasoning.It was used in response to the statement: "Inductive reasoning is not used in science - only deductive reasoning is used". It would be better to ask if you agree with:"By definition: you cannot make general/universal rules/laws in science without using inductive reasoning." Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3712 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
nwr writes:
Sorry everyone, but I just have to say:
L O L !!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024