> Ron previously:
> > Do you mean:
> > 1. Inductive reasoning, used in science and the
> > scientific method.
> SA: Yes. What do you think of this? In other
> words,
> what's your view of this.
> Ron:
> Inductive in most cases is presumptuous
> it does not exhibit the same
> Degree of certainty as the original statement.
SA: What 'original statement' do you mean?
Ron:
> it involves reaching conclusions about unobserved
> things on the basis of what has been observed.
SA: "conclusions about "unobserved things" by
"observed"? How does unobserved conclude observed? I
don't understand this statement.
Ron:
> We all do this here, even pirsig is guilty of it
> When he posits that value accounts for all reality.
> This is what I grapple with. It would seem
> That all philosophy is inductive to some extent.
SA: It would seem, without understanding what you
meant in the first two statements I commented upon I'm
not able to follow up on what you mean here. Let's
start over. What did you mean above?
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
