Re: Patriarchy: Re: What Matriarchy?
Stephen Barnard (steve@megafauna.com)
Tue, 20 Aug 1996 02:59:19 0800
William Edward Woody wrote:
>
> brunner@mandrake.think.com (Eric Brunner) wrote:
> > Stephen Barnard (steve@megafauna.com) wrote:
> > : Godel's theorem has very little to do with physical science, however,
> > : because physical science is based on inductive reasoning.
> >
> > Now that is an interesting statement. Here I thought that mathematics is
> > a representational system, a vocabulary, a construct of mind. Oh well, I
> > suppose that inductive reason must work for all of the (anumerate) exams
> > of (data) evidence, the interior logic of hypothetical frameworks, their
> > methods of test, not to mention all of the points at Schools Debates...
>
> Now here is where I stop.
>
> Somehow he's decided that 'induction' and 'deduction' aren't even
> kissing cousins. And as science uses 'induction' instead of 'deduction'
> to arrive at the original conclusions, Godel's theorem doesn't apply.
>
> A crock, to be sure.
>
> But an amusing crock. Though dancing naked around the fire invoking
> the Gods to come down from heaven and bless the dancers is certainly
> a lot more entertaining.
>
That's right, induction and deduction aren't even remotely similar. Anyone
who knows anything at all about logic knows this. Mind you, I'm not talking
about "mathematical induction", which is a formal type of mathematical
argument. I'm talking about inductive reasoning, and Godel's Theorem has
nothing to say about inductive reasoning.
Here's what the dictionary has to say:
"Deductive reasoning is a logical process in which a conclusion drawn from a
set of premises contains no more informations than the premises taken
collectively. *All dogs are animals; this is a dog; therefore this is an
animal*: The truth of this conclusion is dependent only on the method. *All
men are apes; this is a man; therefore this is an ape*: The conclusion is
logically true, although the premise is absurd.
"Inductive reasoning is a logical process in which a conclusion is proposed
that contains more information than the observations or experience on which it
is based. *Every crow that has ever been seen is black; all crows are black*:
The truth of the conclusion is verifiable on in terms of future experience,
and certainty as attainable only if all possible instances have been examined.
In the example, there is no certainty that a white crow will not be found
tomorrow, but an experience would make such an occurrence seem extremely
unlikely."
I'll add that inductive reasoning is *NOT* considered a basis for mathmatical
proof, and it never will be. ("Let's see, 1 is prime, 3 is prime, 5 is prime,
7 is prime. Aha! All odd numbers are primes!")
I've noticed that you have a tendency to, shall we say, shoot from the hip.
This would be OK, and at times can even be charming if done in a
selfdeprecating way, but the "BZZZZZT" buzzer and the "crock" business really
make you look bad when you are flat wrong.
Steve Barnard
