TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- A "property" of wisdom
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

A "property" of wisdom

Yes, strage title indeed. But I've noticed a recurring pattern for many wise saying and wisdom in general. Wisdom, for the most part if not entirely, seems to be very 'inductive' in nature as opposed to deductive... which also explains why most rationalists entirely lack it and / or have no understanding of many concept and traditions in the human experience that don't exhibit a well defined rigid approach like deduction. Thoughts?

Religion = inductive
Science = deductive
Quantum physics = inductive

STRANGE...

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Religion = inductive

? maybe you meant to use "counter-productive" "creative" or "destructive" ?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Religion = inductive Science = deductive Quantum physics = inductive STRANGE...

It's interesting that you should say that, because I was pretty much an athiest (more like agnostic though) until I started studying physics way back in high school, and I'm not even talking about quantum physics or string theory... but stuff as simple as newtonian physics. I still don't understand the creationist argument though... I can see how one might see the balance, extremely intricate, [sacred or otherwise] geometry, or several other mathematical correspondences in the finer aspects of nature as a 'sign' of God... but to call that a science is just pure unadultrated bullshit. Interestingly enough, I find something like that a lot easier to 'see' or appreciate if you're a "scientist" who's studied advanced mathematical and scientific disciplines. The strongest 'argument' for faith for me personally didn't exist until I studied logic formally.

I'm deviating on a tangent here though, as the reference was to wisdom in general and not widom that can be found specifically in 'religious' texts. That doesn't require a belief in God.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN ? maybe you meant to use "counter-productive" "creative" or "destructive" ?

None of those are forms of reasoning.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z It's interesting that you should say that, because I was pretty much an athiest (more like agnostic though) until I started studying physics way back in high school, and I'm not even talking about quantum physics or string theory... but stuff as simple as newtonian physics. I still don't understand the creationist argument though... I can see how one might see the balance, extremely intricate, [sacred or otherwise] geometry, or several other mathematical correspondences in the finer aspects of nature as a 'sign' of God... but to call that a science is just pure unadultrated bullshit. Interestingly enough, I find something like that a lot easier to 'see' or appreciate unless you're a "scientist" who's studied advanced mathematical and scientific disciplines. The strongest 'argument' for faith for me personally didn't exist until I studied logic formally. I'm deviating on a tangent here though, as the reference was to wisdom in general and not widom that can be found specifically in 'religious' texts. That doesn't require a belief in God.

To me, creationism is misinformed. But there is also no doubt in my mind where the order of the universe comes from. It sure didn't pop up out of nothing. The creationist argument though is not based on an empirical method of deducing facts.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN ? maybe you meant to use "counter-productive" "creative" or "destructive" ?

Do you speak spanish (two question marks surrounding the question)?

EDIT: Whoops, I meant to say "�Hablas espa�ol?"

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton None of those are forms of reasoning.

precisely!

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z (two question marks surrounding the question)?

haha, that was actually 2 sentences in my lazy-type

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN haha, that was actually 2 sentences in my lazy-type

and that type is?????????

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN precisely!

I get your point...but religion clearly uses inductive reasoning to explain questions such as..."Where does physical and mathematical order come from?"

Re: A "property" of wisdom

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Wisdom, for the most part if not entirely, seems to be very 'inductive' in nature as opposed to deductive...

But isn't wisdom created from gained past experience (whether your own or someone else's) hence being deductive?

Re: Re: A "property" of wisdom

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r But isn't wisdom created from gained past experience (whether your own or someone else's) hence being deductive?

Well, it is almost a function of experience but the logic is not A -> B where we know A is true. But instead we notice a pattern of B's where A is mostly true but not always. At the discretion of the person considering the statement, the applicability of it depends on the circumstances and situations rather than being a "universal constant" which makes it very hard for someone who can't think in a non-linear fashion to understand. Deduction is a simple process intelligible to anyone but inductive reasoning and recursive structures are generally far more sophisticated requiring a lot more caution and an advanced understanding for them to make any sense to most people.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I get your point...but religion clearly uses inductive reasoning to explain questions such as..."Where does physical and mathematical order come from?"

The interesting thing about rationalist is that they're more obsessed with methadology than anything else, making them just as ritualistic in the same weird fundamentalistic way as the religious fundamentalist they claim to despise. Apparently the models we use to understand the universe are the universe to them. A rationalist can never grow beyond the confines that their methedology doesn't allow, hence living in a safe little deductive bubble.

Re: Re: Re: A "property" of wisdom

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Well, it is almost a function of experience but the logic is not A -> B where we know A is true. But instead we notice a pattern of B's where A is mostly true but not always. At the discretion of the person considering the statement, the applicability of it depends on the circumstances and situations rather than being a "universal constant" which makes it very hard for someone who can't think in a non-linear fashion to understand. Deduction is a simple process intelligible to anyone but inductive reasoning and recursive structures are generally far more sophisticated requiring a lot more caution and an advanced understanding for them to make any sense to most people.

That's how we do science. If something is usually true but not always true we still use it, but we don't call it a law. Laws are something like thermodynamics which have shown to be accurate in every test ever since the beginning of time.

Re: Re: Re: A "property" of wisdom

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Well, it is almost a function of experience but the logic is not A -> B where we know A is true. But instead we notice a pattern of B's where A is mostly true but not always. At the discretion of the person considering the statement, the applicability of it depends on the circumstances and situations rather than being a "universal constant" which makes it very hard for someone who can't think in a non-linear fashion to understand.

Agreed.
And as Zild pointed out, deduction is in direct proportion of how contant A is - the less conclusive A is, the more inconsitant B is going to be because of factors thrown in by either personal experience or simple outright guessing (hopefully basic on the logic of a best-guess if there is such a thing)

quote:

Deduction is a simple process intelligible to anyone but inductive reasoning and recursive structures are generally far more sophisticated requiring a lot more caution and an advanced understanding for them to make any sense to most people.

Having the 'Big Picture' does help.
Tried to explain it all so others can draw simular conclusions - no so easy.
Espcially behind a keyboard where all the nuances, inuendos and emotional queues are missing...

Re: Re: Re: Re: A "property" of wisdom

quote:

Originally posted by Zild That's how we do science. If something is usually true but not always true we still use it, but we don't call it a law. Laws are something like thermodynamics which have shown to be accurate in every test ever since the beginning of time.

What do you mean? A theorem still requires a proof for it to have any validity. Ironically enough, most mathematical proofs are inductive. Anyone who's studied discrete mathematics and number theory knows that.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Religion = inductive Science = deductive Quantum physics = inductive STRANGE...

Well, that's strange because that's way too simplistic to be accurate.

Fuck, now based on my last post I'm going nuts. Why the fuck is induction considered logically sound to begin with. Here's a typical mathematical proof:

We assume f(n). We demonstrate it hold true for the base case. We assume it holds true for f(n), then we show it hold's true for f(n+1) (or the next n)... and our conclusion is... therefore f(n) must be true... WTF?!?!

How is that logically sound?

EDIT: Ok, since induction itself is driving me nuts I wasn't very articulate there. To rephrase that, you have a hypothesis, you demonstrate it holds true for the base case(s), you assume it holds true for n, and then prove that it holds true for n+1, therefore it is true for n....

WTF?!?!

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Well, that's strange because that's way too simplistic to be accurate.

How so?

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z The interesting thing about rationalist is that they're more obsessed with methadology than anything else, making them just as ritualistic in the same weird fundamentalistic way as the religious fundamentalist they claim to despise. Apparently the models we use to understand the universe are the universe to them. A rationalist can never grow beyond the confines that their methedology doesn't allow, hence living in a safe little deductive bubble.

Kinda like...

Are we the only life in the universe?

Yes = Inductive; the universe is too big for there not to be life.
No = Deductive; there is no proven evidence for extraterrestrial existence.

My point is...wisdom can be attained by both deductive and inductive reasoning.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Fuck, now based on my last post I'm going nuts. Why the fuck is induction considered logically sound to begin with. Here's a typical mathematical proof: We assume f(n). We demonstrate it hold true for the base case. We assume it holds true for f(n), then we show it hold's true for f(n+1) (or the next n)... and our conclusion is... therefore f(n) must be true... WTF?!?! How is that logically sound? EDIT: Ok, since induction itself is driving me nuts I wasn't very articulate there. To rephrase that, you have a hypothesis, you demonstrate it holds true for the base case(s), you assume it holds true for n, and then prove that it holds true for n+1, therefore it is true for n.... WTF?!?!

Therefore it hold "infinitely true" as well... which is a big fucking jump in logic but it almost the basis for mathematics... Renegade!!!!!!! I demand you jump in this thread!

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Kinda like... Are we the only life in the universe? Yes = Inductive; the universe is too big for there not to be life. No = Deductive; there is no proven evidence for extraterrestrial existence. My point is...wisdom can be attained by both deductive and inductive reasoning.

Did you accidentaly misphrase the question or did you accidentaly put the opposite explanation next to 'Yes' and 'No' ...

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton My point is...wisdom can be attained by both deductive and inductive reasoning.

i totally agree

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Therefore it hold "infinitely true" as well... which is a big fucking jump in logic but it almost the basis for mathematics... Renegade!!!!!!! I demand you jump in this thread!

Ok, I know I've thought about this before... but I can't fucking remember my train of thought anymore... I remember an argument I made about mathematical induction actually being a form of deductive reasoning... but now I can't recall why...

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Did you accidentaly misphrase the question or did you accidentaly put the opposite explanation next to 'Yes' and 'No' ...

Neither...

Inductive logic = logic of probabilities
i.e. Aliens exist because the universe is too big to not have aliens.

Deductive logic = logic of definitive fact
i.e. Aliens don't exist because we've never scientifically proven they do.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.