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!security!genrad!decvax!microsoft!uw-beaver!ubc-visi!mprvaxa!tbray
From: tbray@mprvaxa
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Reality - inductive and deductive
Message-ID: <388@mprvaxa.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 20-Nov-83 16:45:25 EST
Article-I.D.: mprvaxa.388
Posted: Sun Nov 20 16:45:25 1983
Date-Received: Tue, 22-Nov-83 03:06:30 EST
References: <373@mprvaxa.UUCP>, <195@wu1.UUCP>
Organization: Microtel Pacific Research, Burnaby BC
Lines: 27

x <-- netnews insecticide

Mr. Fritz proposes the following (Epminides' paradox) as an example of 
deduction leading to new knowledge:

--------
All statements are either true or false ==>
   "This statement is false" is either true or false.

One may reasonably conclude that some statements are not true
and not false under the definitions of true and false used.
--------

The first assertion is an example of deductive reasoning, the process
of "reasonable conclusion" in the second is the worst kind of level-
mixing and has nothing to do with deduction.  Hofstadter has beaten
this issue to death in GEB.

Mr. Fritz also wonders in what fashion humans really do reason.  This
of course is an issue at the very crux of AI, and he can snap up an 
easy Ph. D. if he can settle it convincingly.  My personal conviction 
is that human reasoning is overwhelmingly inductive and that the human 
mind is little more than a superb pattern-matching apparatus with some 
deductive ability on the side.

Oops. Shouldnta said that. Better duck.
	...decvax!microsoft!ubc-vision!mprvaxa!tbray