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.

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

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.

___________________
I've never been able to eat a whole baby.
Kill the women. Eat the children.
It's just one of those days where you want to bend over everyone you know and kiss their ass goodbye with a big sideways boot.

Latest Mix

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...

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

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.

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

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.

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

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?!?!

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

Last edited by shaolin_Z on Jun-03-2008 at 20:42

quote:

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

How so?

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

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!

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

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' ...

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

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...

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller