Russell Standish wrote circa 12-03-23 10:21 PM:
In order to persuade me that induction is invalid,
Here's a great example of how a belief in induction allows us to think
in sloppy ways:
This reminds me of a comment in the Physics vs.
Chemistryhttp://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/timc/timc_20111219-1700a.mp3episode
of the BBC's Infinite Monkey Cage:
Chemistry is better than physics, because if something doesn't work you
can't pretend that it does by sticking the word 'dark'
This is a red herring. The argument for dark matter/energy need not be
inductive. The inductive form is:
o we've defined the set based on the laws of physics we've observed
o everything is in this set
o gravity seems stronger/weaker than predicted in some contexts
.: there are unobserved
Glen,
There is good reason to exclude the middle though. I am uncomfortable with the
non-right-or-wrong options you have given. To me, it seems that an argument can
only be correct if it specifies the circumstances under which it is correct
(when the intended circumstances are always, we often
or by working with examples so staightfoward and free of technical
detail that the context is obvious to all participants without a whole lot
of explication .
-Original Message-
From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of glen e. p. ropella
Glen wrote:
Nick and Doug are both being flippant because a mailing
list is not a conducive forum to rigorous conversation. They seemingly
enjoy their lack of empathy toward the other, at least here ... probably not
face-to-face. So, the likelihood either will assume the other has
I asked a (non-rhetorical) question:
But you might think it is, so I ask you, do you? If not, how might
it be remediated (practically or impractically)?
It occurred to me that maybe this is something that could be
investigated using ... AGENT BASED MODELING! (Indeed, maybe it has
been.)
lrudo...@meganet.net wrote at 03/26/2012 02:08 PM:
I said that you're not *necessarily* concluding that the FRIAM forum
(in particular) is *irremediably* flawed (you do, after all, continue
to participate non-trivially). But you might think it is, so I ask
you, do you? If not, how might
