To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Clarifying Induction Threads
Thanks, Eric.
I am sure Bayes and and Peirce would have got on famously. Unfortunately, this
can only be surmise for me, because despite attempts by many kind people to
explain Baye
hey will correct me. I will send along any corrections I
> receive.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> FN#1. Yes, I know that all swans are not white. I know my ornithology, my
> childhood literature and my chaotic economics as well as the next guy. ***
> *
>
>
Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Clarifying Induction Threads
Thanks greatly Nick,
It is very helpful to me to see these premises laid out in a systematic way,
since I am nowhere near having the resources of either time or brain to try to
read this material myself
> various lights, etc., and then DECIDE that it was white. Whether that
> process is conscious or unconscious, systematic or unsystematic, is
> irrelevant to Peirce. It is still an inference.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:f
g Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Clarifying Induction Threads
Thank you Lee and Glen both,
Yes, I could not disagree.
There is an interesting question, Glen, on which I don't have a dog in the
fight either way. Is the worry about induction only (or even
All -
Probably too much to respond to, but for no particularly good reason, a few
comments . . .
1.) Whenever I teach about logic / scientific-method, one thing I make sure
to do is remind students that "deduction" is not a "truth *producing*" system,
but is at best a "truth *preserving*"
Thank you Lee and Glen both,
Yes, I could not disagree.
There is an interesting question, Glen, on which I don't have a dog in the
fight either way. Is the worry about induction only (or even mostly) about the
origin of conjectures, or is it (equally much, or even mostly) about the source
o
Eric Smith:
> every child knows there can be no discussion of induction that is not
> predicated on the availability of infinities.
Not so (independent of what every child knows)! I have to rush off
but will try to get back to this later.
That's an awesome essay! Thanks.
Of course, I never say anything unless I have something to disagree
with... So, I have 2 points to argue about:
1) Your finiteness is illusory because you assume crisp sets, and
2) The problem of induction is about the origins of a conjecture, not
merely about t
I agree, Wow, to Eric Charles's summary.
Can I ask, is there any role for finiteness in this discussion? There seem to
me to be two places the constraints of being finite enter, and the specific
point at which they seem forced by one of the questions that has been asked
(Why would you accept t
Nicholas Thompson wrote at 03/28/2012 09:38 AM:
> I don't think we've been talking about psychological induction, here but
> logical induction. And I think mathematical induction is actually a species
> of Deduction. I am in a rush now, but I am putting in this marker in the
> hope that others w
will help out.
Nick
-Original Message-
From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of glen e. p. ropella
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 9:53 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Clarifying Induction Threads
Owe
Owen Densmore wrote at 03/28/2012 08:20 AM:
> All: Did no one discuss the mathematics of induction .. the inductive
> proof? Certainly that is accepted by us all, even tho anyone can make a
> sequence of a set of N numbers, who's generator can provide any number
> for its N+1th number. It is in t
been ….
> Um …too flippant or clever. I am pretty tired and it is pretty late.
>
> ** **
>
> Nick
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On
> Behalf Of *Russ Abbott
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 27, 2012 11:03 PM
>
dfish.com] On Behalf
Of Russ Abbott
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 11:03 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Cc: Owen Densmore
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Clarifying Induction Threads
The inductive argument for induction [paraphrased from Eric]: The fact that
induction has been so succe
[mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of
ERIC P. CHARLES
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 10:50 PM
To: Owen Densmore
Cc: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] Clarifying Induction Threads
Owen,
As I understand it:
Doug announced his ordination. After a bit of
The inductive argument for induction [paraphrased from Eric]: The fact that
induction has been so successful in the past should convince of its
usefulness in the future.
*-- Russ Abbott*
*_*
*** Professor, Computer Science*
* California State Universit
Owen,
As I understand it:
Doug announced his ordination. After a bit of banter, Doug made some
generalizations about religious and non-religious people based on his past
experience but... the ability to draw conclusions from past experience is a
bit philosophically mysterious. The seeming contr
18 matches
Mail list logo
