28 Dec 2008, 10:59 am
28 Dec 2008, 11:06 am
have you thought that maybe the logical, unemotional ones don't really bother with Internet forums?
28 Dec 2008, 11:41 am
28 Dec 2008, 12:08 pm
28 Dec 2008, 12:20 pm
28 Dec 2008, 12:21 pm
Shiggily wrote:
Woodpecker wrote:
My next worry is that inductive reasoning can with perfectly good logic but a bad starting point can create nonsense. If an error is made while making an observation then everything will go wrong.
See philosophy considers many things logic that I don't think qualifies as logic. I wouldn't consider your statement to be logical unless you worded it differently.
Strictly speaking I should have used the word mistake in place of error, but if you were to look out over the sea from a beach the surface of the water would appear flat. From that you mght reason that the earth is flat. This is an example of how inductive reasoning can go wrong becuase of a bad observation.
_________________
Health is a state of physical, mental and social wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity
I am not a jigsaw, I am a free man ! Diagnosed under the DSM5 rules with autism spectrum disorder, under DSM4 psychologist said would have been AS (299.80) but I suspect that I am somewhere between 299.80 and 299.00 (Autism) under DSM4.
28 Dec 2008, 12:28 pm
Hector wrote:
Woodpecker wrote:
The other big problem is "inductive reasoning", I will "prove" that Shiggily wears pink shoes.
Statement one.
I saw a woman wearing pink shoes walking along a street.
Statement two.
Shiggily is a woman.
Inductive reasoning works by taking two statements which are thought to be true, and then it creates a third new statement from the first two.
The new statement is that "Shiggily becuase she is a woman must wear pink shoes"
A better system of thinking is to create a hypothesis such as "All women wear pink shoes", before doing an experiment where you randomly select women and examine their shoes. The first woman you see wearing nonpink shoes will show that the hypothesis is wrong, the obervation of a woman wearing pink shoes will simply mean that the hypothesis is not wrong yet. I suspect that in most towns you could show that the hypothesis is wrong within minutes.
My next worry is that inductive reasoning can with perfectly good logic but a bad starting point can create nonsense. If an error is made while making an observation then everything will go wrong.
Statement one.
I saw a woman wearing pink shoes walking along a street.
Statement two.
Shiggily is a woman.
Inductive reasoning works by taking two statements which are thought to be true, and then it creates a third new statement from the first two.
The new statement is that "Shiggily becuase she is a woman must wear pink shoes"
A better system of thinking is to create a hypothesis such as "All women wear pink shoes", before doing an experiment where you randomly select women and examine their shoes. The first woman you see wearing nonpink shoes will show that the hypothesis is wrong, the obervation of a woman wearing pink shoes will simply mean that the hypothesis is not wrong yet. I suspect that in most towns you could show that the hypothesis is wrong within minutes.
My next worry is that inductive reasoning can with perfectly good logic but a bad starting point can create nonsense. If an error is made while making an observation then everything will go wrong.
The purpose is, as always, to try to convince people that you are right. You're not likely to convince anyone that you're right by singling out one woman as wearing pink shoes and then generalising, but if you were to study all the women in the world and find that every woman in some large sample wears pink shoes then you could be considerably more persuasive.
True but I was trying to point out the worst possible use of inductive reasoning, which is an example of weak induction based on a single observation. If the reasoning had been based on a series of observations of different women it might be better, but what if by chance the researcher has wandered into a pink shoe convention. I hold the view that unless the footware of every woman who has ever walked the face of the earth is examined then it is not possible to use inductive reasoning to prove that all women wear pink shoes. The examination of every woman's feet in a city such as York, a country such as Ireland or even the world is not likely to be possible to do.
So I think that the inductive model falls flat on its face on a regular basis.
_________________
Health is a state of physical, mental and social wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity
I am not a jigsaw, I am a free man ! Diagnosed under the DSM5 rules with autism spectrum disorder, under DSM4 psychologist said would have been AS (299.80) but I suspect that I am somewhere between 299.80 and 299.00 (Autism) under DSM4.
28 Dec 2008, 12:39 pm
28 Dec 2008, 12:45 pm
28 Dec 2008, 1:44 pm
28 Dec 2008, 2:02 pm
To add to what I said at the top of the page, or perhaps to simplify, I think it's not emotional versus logical. It's emotional versus logical, versus social thinking. Social thinking is different from being logical, and different from being emotional. It's a third thing, and is part of the equation. The part us here tend not to be good at. 
28 Dec 2008, 3:41 pm
28 Dec 2008, 6:17 pm
28 Dec 2008, 8:48 pm
28 Dec 2008, 9:02 pm
28 Dec 2008, 9:03 pm
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Why do people recommend working in IT/Computers for Aspies? |
21 Nov 2024, 10:26 am |
| What would tech look like if Aspies ran the tech industry? |
28 Nov 2024, 3:48 pm |
