Re: Patriarchy: Re: What Matriarchy?

Marty G. Price (mprice@Ra.MsState.Edu)
Tue, 20 Aug 1996 09:12:09 -0500

On Tue, 20 Aug 1996, Stephen Barnard wrote:

> 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.

[snipped explanation of the distinction]

Stephen, you're working in the details & missing the great big historical
development. Induction & deduction developed as mirror images: induction
working from "instances" to "categories" and deduction from "categories"
to "instances." In terms of historical development (and likely
development as human patterns of thinking) they are deeply related.

This *does not* deal with your issue regarding Godel's Theorem, or the
general substance of the argument. This is *only* a correction of your
lead point. (I'm not arguing Godel's Theorem with anyone; I have easier
ways of making a fool of myself. :) )

Blessed Be,