ForumGarden

coberst;704878 wrote: Inductive reasoning is our means for learning. This wiki site will give you some understanding of inductive reasoning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning


The Link you provided wrote: Inductive reasoning has been attacked several times. Historically, David Hume denied its logical admissibility. During the 20th century, most notably Karl Popper and David Miller have disputed the existence, necessity and validity of any inductive reasoning


The Link you provided wrote: A strong induction is thus an argument in which the truth of the premises would make the truth of the conclusion probable, but not definite.


The link you provided wrote: Conclusions drawn in this manner are usually overgeneralizations.


The link you provided wrote: In contrast to deductive reasoning, conclusions arrived at by inductive reasoning do not necessarily have the same degree of certainty as the initial premises


The link you provided wrote: However, if your unstated conclusion is false, which can only be proven by deductive reasoning, then your whole argument by induction collapses. Thus ultimately, pure inductive reasoning does not exist.


Yes, most interesting reading. I wonder since you used it to -defend- inductive reasoning whether you actually read it before you linked to it.

coberst;704878 wrote: Inductive reasoning is our means for learning. This wiki site will give you some understanding of inductive reasoning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning


Oh come on, Coberst. Inductive reasoning is not a catch all. There are many areas where it is absolutely useless. They very article you sent me to uses this example:

"Strong induction

All observed crows are black.

therefore,

All crows are black.

This exemplifies the nature of induction: inducing the universal from the particular. However, the conclusion is not certain.

Unless we can systematically falsify the possibility of crows of another color, the statement (conclusion) may actually be false."

And this....

"Weak induction

I always hang pictures on nails.

therefore

All pictures hang from nails.

Assuming the first statement to be true, this example is built on the certainty that "I always hang pictures on nails" leading to the generalization that "All pictures hang from nails". However, the link between the premise and the inductive conclusion is weak. No reason exists to believe that just because one person hangs pictures on nails that there are no other ways for pictures to be hung, or that other people cannot do other things with pictures. Indeed, not all pictures are hung from nails; moreover, not all pictures are hung. The conclusion cannot be strongly inductively made from the premise. Using other knowledge we can easily see that this example of induction would lead us to a clearly false conclusion. Conclusions drawn in this manner are usually overgeneralizations."

Therefore, based on the very information that you gave me to read, all learning is not general.

Devonin;704907 wrote: Yes, most interesting reading. I wonder since you used it to -defend- inductive reasoning whether you actually read it before you linked to it.


:wah::wah::wah: My thoughts exactly!!

CT (Critical Thinking) is a complex but a many splendored thing.

Your statement is neither complex nor many-splendored. It is instead, rude, dismissive, against the spirit of proper discussion and discourse, and displays nothing so much as your complete ignorance of the process you claim to now be dedicating your life to.

Making statements, and then ignoring each and every issue people take with your statements has NOTHING to do with critical thinking. It is the exact -opposite- of critical thinking.

Unless or until you start supporting your claims with evidence, start responding to issues that have been raised with your points, and begin showing the users of this forum the basic respect that you -should- be showing to each and every human, all you are, sir, is a preacher, not an intellectual, not a critical thinker, not a philosopher. All you are, is a mouth, making statements. You might as well be inanimate at this stage, given your total lack of recognition for the fact that this is a discussion and debate forum.