|
A "property" of wisdom (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| shaolin_Z |
| 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. |
|
|
| Zild |
| 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. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| 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) :p
| 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... |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| 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? :conf: 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. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Religion = inductive
Science = deductive
Quantum physics = inductive
STRANGE...:eek: |
Well, that's strange because that's way too simplistic to be accurate. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
, now based on my last post I'm going nuts. Why the 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?!?! |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Well, that's strange because that's way too simplistic to be accurate. |
How so? |
|
|
| Krypton |
| 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. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
, now based on my last post I'm going nuts. Why the 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 ing jump in logic but it almost the basis for mathematics... Renegade!!!!!!! I demand you jump in this thread! |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| 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' ... :conf: |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
My point is...wisdom can be attained by both deductive and inductive reasoning. |
i totally agree |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Therefore it hold "infinitely true" as well... which is a big ing 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 ing 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... |
|
|
|
|
