User Tag List

First 123 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 22

  1. #11
    Senior Member UniqueMixture's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    estj
    Enneagram
    378 sx/so
    Socionics
    esfp
    Posts
    3,036

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EvidenceOfRedemption View Post
    Why do you assume people do use it? A lot of people think they are being logical, but they're merely assuming whatever is left after skipping over important contradictions is true.
    Contradictions don't really exist. They're just opportunities for us to create a new heuristic that incorporates the new experience.
    For all that we have done, as a civilization, as individuals, the universe is not stable, and nor is any single thing within it. Stars consume themselves, the universe itself rushes apart, and we ourselves are composed of matter in constant flux. Colonies of cells in temporary alliance, replicating and decaying and housed within, an incandescent cloud of electrical impulses. This is reality, this is self knowledge, and the perception of it will, of course, make you dizzy.

  2. #12
    Senior Member Winds of Thor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    1,859

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EvidenceOfRedemption View Post
    Why do you assume people do use it? A lot of people think they are being logical, but they're merely assuming whatever is left after skipping over important contradictions is true.
    This^ is so true. I used to talk to an INFJ when I was in school. She claimed was rational. Hehe.
    She was a head case tho.
    "..And the eight and final rule: If this is your first time at Fight Club, you have to fight."
    'Men are meant to be with women. The rest is perversion and mental illness.'

  3. #13
    Senior Member Winds of Thor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    1,859

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UniqueMixture View Post
    Contradictions don't really exist. They're just opportunities for us to create a new heuristic that incorporates the new experience.
    Pot? Did you call the kettle?
    "..And the eight and final rule: If this is your first time at Fight Club, you have to fight."
    'Men are meant to be with women. The rest is perversion and mental illness.'

  4. #14
    Senior Member Little_Sticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,370

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UniqueMixture View Post
    Contradictions don't really exist. They're just opportunities for us to create a new heuristic that incorporates the new experience.
    I've wondered something similar. Contradictions only really become contradictions once they are found; previous thought has no contradiction until it is presented with one.

    In this sense, there are intellectuals that go looking for contradictions, where unsatisfied, each solution to a problem becomes its own problem, and those that are satisfied when a solution is found, accepting any flaws as a natural order to life.

    The former is a bit more comforting to those that seek to be less ignorant, but its inaction leads to its own kind of ignorance. The latter is a bit more comforting to those that appreciate how inaction produces nothing of its own accord, but its action dons an implicit ignorance.

    Which one is the lesser of the two evils?

  5. #15
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    As I understand it, inductive reasoning is, like Kalach says, looking at a body of evidence and forming an educated prediction. E.g., the sun has been observed to rise in the east and set in the west for fall of recorded history, so barring the existence of dynamics we are unaware of, we can reasonably infer that the sun will continue to rise in the east and set in the west.

    Deductive reasoning, on the other hand, is when we can conclude something absolutely must be the case on the basis of its premises. For example, if we could somehow conclude that all swans were white and knew for certain that Steve the Swan was a swan, even without seeing Steve we could know he was white.

    It seems to me we never really use deductive reasoning in our day-to-day lives, since everything we "know" we only know to degrees of certainty on the basis of evidence. All of our assumptions are best-fit explanations of the evidence.
    It's interesting, though, because the nature of deductive reasoning is quite different among various disciplines. In mathematics and philosophy, deductive reasoning is essentially probative, given their high levels of abstraction. Meanwhile, in the hard sciences, deductive reasoning leads to hypotheses at best, while still demanding empirical observation of the concluded phenomenon. In the soft sciences, deductive reasoning is more a means of argumentation than proof, as it is likely that there will be few premises that all will agree upon as factual.

  6. #16
    Senior Member UniqueMixture's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    estj
    Enneagram
    378 sx/so
    Socionics
    esfp
    Posts
    3,036

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Little_Sticks View Post
    I've wondered something similar. Contradictions only really become contradictions once they are found; previous thought has no contradiction until it is presented with one.

    In this sense, there are intellectuals that go looking for contradictions, where unsatisfied, each solution to a problem becomes its own problem, and those that are satisfied when a solution is found, accepting any flaws as a natural order to life.

    The former is a bit more comforting to those that seek to be less ignorant, but its inaction leads to its own kind of ignorance. The latter is a bit more comforting to those that appreciate how inaction produces nothing of its own accord, but its action dons an implicit ignorance.

    Which one is the lesser of the two evils?
    I was presenting this not as a fundamental truth, but rather as a useful tool

    If you do not state it in absolutist terms, it does not have the same emotional impact.
    For all that we have done, as a civilization, as individuals, the universe is not stable, and nor is any single thing within it. Stars consume themselves, the universe itself rushes apart, and we ourselves are composed of matter in constant flux. Colonies of cells in temporary alliance, replicating and decaying and housed within, an incandescent cloud of electrical impulses. This is reality, this is self knowledge, and the perception of it will, of course, make you dizzy.

  7. #17
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    It's interesting, though, because the nature of deductive reasoning is quite different among various disciplines. In mathematics and philosophy, deductive reasoning is essentially probative, given their high levels of abstraction. Meanwhile, in the hard sciences, deductive reasoning leads to hypotheses at best, while still demanding empirical observation of the concluded phenomenon. In the soft sciences, deductive reasoning is more a means of argumentation than proof, as it is likely that there will be few premises that all will agree upon as factual.
    I'm interested in knowing a lot more about mathematics than I currently do. It's a thing of interest to me, how on one hand mathematical systems can be internally consistent but totally divorced from reality, yet on the other hand make predictions that are internally consistent and seemingly divorced from reality (or which at least fly in the face of common sense), but which are eventually supported by evidence.
    Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

    -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --

  8. #18
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UniqueMixture View Post
    Contradictions don't really exist. They're just opportunities for us to create a new heuristic that incorporates the new experience.
    Contradictions do exist, it's just that the premises can't be true.

    But I guess that's what you're saying -- that when we see a contradiction, it forces us to change our assumptions.

  9. #19
    Senior Member UniqueMixture's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    estj
    Enneagram
    378 sx/so
    Socionics
    esfp
    Posts
    3,036

    Default

    @Evan yeah, though I admit the number of mathematicians who believe that proof by negation is not true is fairly tiny (probably less than 1%). In my view it is not necessary so I find it awkward to use because it makes my conclusions feel more tenuous. Also, I believe there are real psychological/emotional benefits to NOT (: D lol) believing in it.
    For all that we have done, as a civilization, as individuals, the universe is not stable, and nor is any single thing within it. Stars consume themselves, the universe itself rushes apart, and we ourselves are composed of matter in constant flux. Colonies of cells in temporary alliance, replicating and decaying and housed within, an incandescent cloud of electrical impulses. This is reality, this is self knowledge, and the perception of it will, of course, make you dizzy.

  10. #20
    Post Human Post Qlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,489

    Default

    I'm a computer programmer, I use inductive reasoning on a daily basis, and I'm quite familiar with the pitfalls and possible errors when employing it. Even when working within a system that you yourself created, the different variables involved can become increasingly complex beyond your ability to be certain about all of its properties. But, even so, inductive reasoning is sometimes the only tool for the job. Of course, in my specific applications I can empirically test to see how often I am right or wrong. Some people don't have that type of familiarity with the hits and misses of their own reasoning processes.

Similar Threads

  1. [INTJ] what is it with INTJ's a germanic sounding names/military avatars?
    By Il Morto Qui Parla in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 04-23-2014, 05:10 AM
  2. Do you have an inner monologue? What is it like?
    By Geoff in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 05-10-2012, 12:36 AM
  3. Common sense - what is it and who has it?
    By JivinJeffJones in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 85
    Last Post: 06-02-2009, 12:21 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO