Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mprvaxa.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ubc-visi!mprvaxa!tbray
From: tbray@mprvaxa
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Reality - inductive and deductive
Message-ID: <373@mprvaxa.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 13-Nov-83 14:56:26 EST
Article-I.D.: mprvaxa.373
Posted: Sun Nov 13 14:56:26 1983
Date-Received: Tue, 15-Nov-83 03:00:33 EST
References: <421@houca.UUCP>, <1417@utcsstat.UUCP>
Organization: Microtel Pacific Research, Burnaby BC
Lines: 45

x
Laura has just raised one of my favourite philosophical questions
with her recent discussion of reality, and must now bear the windy
consequences.

The question is: on what basis, if any, can we be confident of our
knowledge of reality?  The relevance of this question to many other
questions, including those currently under debate in this group, are
obvious. (Even "objectivism" - yecch).

There is general agreement that there are two general flavours of
reasoning and of knowledge - deductive and inductive. Examples:

DEDUCTION:
Axiomatic definition of      syllogistic     "There are infinitely
number, primeness, and   ==> reasoning   ==>  many prime numbers"
the relation ">"

INDUCTION:
Putting unprotected flesh     inductive      "Hot places are painful
in a region of high       ==> reasoning ==>   and damaging"
temperature has
always caused me pain
and damage.

The distinguishing characteristic of deductive reasoning is that no
NEW knowledge is produced.  The infinitude of primes is intrinsic
in the specification of the axioms and rules of deduction.

The distinguishing characteristic of inductive reasoning is that
new "knowledge" is produced, but that there is apparently no 
purely rational basis for confidence that that knowledge will
remain reliable.  The scientific method is based on inductive 
reasoning.

Conclusion: those who put forward weighty aguments based, they
say, on nothing but "rationality" and "reality" should be aware that
there is at least one potential gaping hole in their defenses.

If this topic is of interest, I will present some of the famous
historical arguments on it.  The first point for debate, of
course, must be:  Is this a real problem or a red herring?

	Tim Bray
	...decvax!microsoft!ubc-vision!mprvaxa!tbray