On 30/11/2021 04:54, Aragorn wrote:
> On 29.11.2021 at 21:22, Grant Taylor scribbled:
>> On 11/29/21 7:49 PM, Aragorn wrote:
>>> but you yourself are a Slackware user
>> Actually, I'm not.
> I deducted this from the fact that you appear to be mainly posting in
> My apologies, then. ;)
No Aragorn, strictly you *inferred* it.
*deductive* logic is of the nature of:
IF a straight line is the shortest distance between two points THEN (all
of geometry, etc) is *demonstrably* true.
If you want to view it in terms of information, one can prove that e.g.
the *deductions* of formal geometry contain no more information than is
expressed by it's axioms: That is the formal proofs of geometry are in
fact no more than explications of implicit information contained in the
This is a completely different case from *inductive* logic, where
instead of working from axioms (or prime causes) to effects, we try to
work the reverse magic: go from effects, to *possible causes*.
The problem here is that there is a many-to-one set of potential causes,
for any effect.
e.g. the *demonstrable fact* of his posting in alt.os.linux.slackware
*might* mean that he is secretly enamoured of another poster there, he
once installed slackware and hasn't unsubscribed yet, he is off his
trolley and thinks slackware is a form of clothing....
This is the generalised form of Hume's Problem Of Induction.
Winnie Ille Pu said:
"De heffalumpis semper dubitandum est. Cura ut bene valeas!"*
Which of course was plagiarised by Kierkegaard as "De omnibus
But the message is clear. Doubt must the default condition when applied
to inductive hypothesises, or inferences.
Everything from Divine Intervention to the Russians must be considered a
suspect, And as Sherlock Holmes incorrectly remarked 'when you have
eliminated all the impossible, whatever is left must be the truth' Sadly
for Sherlock, he was involved not in deduction, but in induction, and
only in fiction does the *possible* truth become *single valued*.
In short there are an infinite number of explanations that *don't* fit
the facts and an infinite number that *do*.
And anyone who claims they have arrived at 'The scientific truth' is
William of Ockham along with other mediæval thinkers was well aware of
"Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate"
Which basically boils down to '[since we can't know the truth], keep
theories simple enough to work and no more'
A view the Church tried correctly to instil in Galileo, when he
attempted to ascribe Truth content to what was simply another inductive
theory, and as we know from Einstein, there is no centre round which
everything rotates anywhere in the Universe, it's all relative, so you
just pick the most convenient axes**.
So it is important to understand that deduction is logic, but science
and casual explanations lie in the realm of induction, or inference, and
the only advantage science ultimately has, is not the establishment of
truth content, but in the efficacy of its predictions. Science that
doesn't predict what happens, isn't science. ***
*Winnie Ille Pu:
*** except of course ClimateScience, where the 'science' has singularly
failed to predict anything that has actually happened to any degree of
accuracy better than chance.
"First, find out who are the people you can not criticise. They are your
- George Orwell