Re: Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
Y.Porat
> On Dec 21, 4:33 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <16d16b5b-83b8-4523-82fa-9d71f9c90...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ...
>
> > > The theories are derived by the process of induction I described
> > > earlier. Please see my earlier note about this.
>
> > I did see them and I commented on them. You are using the word induction
> > to wave at roughly *whatever scientists do* and that is not really
> > helpful.
>
> Oh, I think I was a little more elaborate than that.
>
>
>
> > > From these theories, predictions are *deduced* from the models.
>
> > > The experimental test involves neither deduction nor induction. It is
> > > a simple comparison -- the prediction and the measurement overlap or
> > > they don't. Period.
>
> > No. Deduction is involved. If have the theory that my kettle will always
> > boil in under two minutes and I see it does not in certain conditions,
> > it is a deductive matter that the generalisation is false.
>
> It is an experimental test of an induced generalization.
>
>
>
> > > Note, however, that a favorable bit of experimental evidence does not
> > > allow you to *deduce* anything about the truth of the theory. You only
> > > have a bit of experimental support. In science, nothing is ever
> > > proven. In this sense, nothing is deductively certain, either.
>
> > It is the nature of this support that I am interested in. The
> > traditional philosophical problem of induction in philosophy has been
> > the difficulties with the idea that more and more cases consistent with
> > a generalization go to more and more confirm that generalisation. I am
> > denying this.
>
> And at no point does the generalization become completely confirmed. I
> don't know what issue you have with this.
>
> A theory makes statements of this sort:
> "We observe the pattern Y in circumstances A, B, and C. From this we
> induce that there is a common principle P that will predict pattern Y
> in circumstances A, B, and C. Furthermore this principle P also
> predicts pattern X in untested circumstances D and E, and pattern W in
> untested circumstances F, G, and H, and pattern V in untested
> circumstances I, J, K, and L." Then science goes about the process of
> locating or creating circumstances D through L. Every successful match
> of a circumstance and the predicted pattern increases the confidence
> in the induced principle P, even before all untested circumstances are
> tested. And in fact, most models do not exhaust untested
> circumstances, so there is always the opportunity to continue to test
> the induced principle.
------------------
now Mr PD
after all that remarkable impressive abstract
knowledge about how theories and innovations are done
what are the innovations that you did
in physics ???
(actually that question could be directed
to most people taking part in this
learned discussion )
Y.Porat
-------------------------
PD
My record is public, Porat. You do know how to use the internet to
look me up, right?
Y.Porat
cant you tell us some hints?
some headers of say
2 3 5 words ?????
for instance
i innovated about nuclear geometric structre
or
no mass - no real physics
or the photon has mass
or
Alpha particles will be found in the LHC
or
curved unexplained movement will be found in the LHC
or
no Higgs no SHMIGS
or no curvature of space
etc
all together in this example 6 innovations
while i know nothing asbout a theory
about how to make an innovation and inductions
and am an outsider moron ..... (:-)
can you give us at least
one of yours- say the most important one
in one line ??
TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------
Aleph
596fcb...@v13g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, sent to sci.physics on Tue,
22 Dec 2009 23:44:15 -0800 (PST), Y.Porat <y.y....@gmail.com> imparted
these words of wisdom:
>
> On Dec 22, 8:51 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 22, 10:19 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > after all that remarkable impressive abstract
> > > knowledge about how theories and innovations are done
> > > what are the innovations that you did
> > > in physics ???
> >
> > My record is public, Porat. You do know how to use the internet to
> > look me up, right?
>
Is that a "no" then?
> some headers of say
> 2 3 5 words ?????
Are you incapable of researching? That would explain it. Do you need
everything distilled into simplistic laymans terms? If so, it would give
a better insight into why you have no understanding...
> <snip babble>
> while i know nothing asbout a theory
> about how to make an innovation and inductions
> and am an outsider moron ..... (:-)
ROTFLMAO.
--
Aleph
This article was posted to USENET, please reply in that manner. Emails
to this account will be ignored.
Y.Porat
> In article <4a1ce290-24ac-4cbc-9427-
> 596fcb477...@v13g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, sent to sci.physics on Tue,
> 22 Dec 2009 23:44:15 -0800 (PST), Y.Porat <y.y.po...@gmail.com> imparted
---------------------
i start to suspect that actually
Aleph = PD .......!!
2
until now i was looking for PD s innovations
and found not6hing !!!
so we have here an abstract philosopher parrot
Y.P
---------------------------
PD
You don't look for anything. You sit at your place at the table and
wait to see what gets served on your plate.
Do you understand the difference?
Y.Porat
it is either an idiot
or a shamless crook :
i preffere the second possibility !!
since you admitted unwillingly that you got my book
and refuse to tell me how did you got it
it is fo rme rather a theft
so after reading all that in it
DOYOU STILL HAVE THE IMPERTINENCE
TO SAY THAT I SIT BACK AND DO NOTHING ???!!!
there is ther a whole new model of the Atom and nuc
a lot of readers cold get some idea about it
from my anstract :
http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract
and you dare to say that a parrot and theife like you even in his life
could do something like that??
moreover
allmy innovations
about
photons having mass and prove of it
my prediction that Alphs particles will be found in the lHC
(of course tritons and deutrons as well
will be found)
my prve that that eelctron is not a point particle
my evaluations about fusion by Tokamaks
my suggestion that real fusion will be donr from the simplest raw
material ie protons
by counter collision
my pustulate about Time
my postulate that
no mass no real physics
my prediction that no Higgs Bosons will be found!!
my suggestion to the LHC to look for
unexlpained circulat movement
my claim that space has no properties except
hosting mass!!
etc etc etc
now
WAHT ARE YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE ADVANCE OF SCINCE ??
i asked you and you could not even mention
a single meaninful one actually
you evaded from answering it
can you cheat all fo rever ?
and still blame ME in being a sort of a parasite ??
while the real emthy parrot is YOU ??
not only a parrot but muchworse:
A CROOK DEMAGOGUE !!
of course no body canhave all the
information on his table
sowaht is wrong
IN ADDITION TO ALL MY CONTRIBUTIONS
TO ASK FOR MORE NEEDED INFORMATION FOR **FURTHER** ISSUES
SOLUTIONS !!!???
is a little parrot crook (and parasite ) like you can blame**me* in
being sort of a parasite ???!!!
ps
i have now about a thousand viewers !! lust take it in acount before
attacking me !!
Y.Porat
---------------------------
let the other honest people judge !!
Don Stockbauer
"Gee, I wish WE had one of them Doomsday Devices!!!!"
Y.Porat
------------------
just consult Adolph your friend !!
Y.P
-------------------
Y.Porat
and !!
i am a better 'stockbauer' than you
i am among the others -a civil Engineer .....
so just fuck of with your gangsters
and let science alone
Y.P
----------------------
Aleph
@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, sent to sci.physics on Fri, 25 Dec 2009
23:28:04 -0800 (PST), Y.Porat <y.y....@gmail.com> imparted these words
of wisdom:
> i start to suspect that actually
> Aleph = PD .......!!
Dont you get bored of being wrong?
Please try to spend a little less time thinking I am someone else or a
little more time learning science.
> 2
> until now i was looking for PD s innovations
> and found not6hing !!!
Your failure to use google is no one elses problem.
> so we have here an abstract philosopher parrot
Blah, blah.
Y.Porat
> In article <461224e9-e767-4343-930b-5556eee769b7
> @m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, sent to sci.physics on Fri, 25 Dec 2009
> of wisdom:
>
> > i start to suspect that actually
> > Aleph = PD .......!!
>
> Dont you get bored of being wrong?
>
> Please try to spend a little less time thinking I am someone else or a
> little more time learning science.
>
> > 2
> > until now i was looking for PD s innovations
> > and found not6hing !!!
>
> Your failure to use google is no one elses problem.
>
> > so we have here an abstract philosopher parrot
>
> Blah, blah.
>
> --
> Aleph
>
> This article was posted to USENET, please reply in that manner. Emails
> to this account will be ignored.
----------------
i start to - even more -suspect that:
Aleph =PD .....
Y.P
-----------------------
Aleph
0d28d4...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, sent to sci.physics on Mon,
28 Dec 2009 02:22:39 -0800 (PST), Y.Porat <y.y....@gmail.com> imparted
>
> On Dec 27, 4:46 pm, Aleph <Usenet....@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
> > In article <461224e9-e767-4343-930b-5556eee769b7
> > @m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, sent to sci.physics on Fri, 25 Dec 2009
> > 23:28:04 -0800 (PST), Y.Porat <y.y.po...@gmail.com> imparted these words
> > of wisdom:
> >
> > > i start to suspect that actually
> > > Aleph = PD .......!!
> >
> > Dont you get bored of being wrong?
> >
> > Please try to spend a little less time thinking I am someone else or a
> > little more time learning science.
> >
> > > 2
> > > until now i was looking for PD s innovations
> > > and found not6hing !!!
> >
> > Your failure to use google is no one elses problem.
> >
> > > so we have here an abstract philosopher parrot
> >
> > Blah, blah.
> >
> > --
> > Aleph
> >
> > This article was posted to USENET, please reply in that manner. Emails
> > to this account will be ignored.
>
> ----------------
> i start to - even more -suspect that:
>
> Aleph =PD .....
>
Well, given how clueless you are, this is hardly surprising - is it?