deductive logic vs inductive logic

[FoJaR]

lets have a good old fashioned throwdown.

is truth with a capital T important?

which has done more for the world, deduction or induction?

[blindreper1179]

Re: deductive logic vs inductive logic

seduction

[FoJaR]

Re: deductive logic vs inductive logic

listen i know that statistically a fojar thread is going to be in TGB, but sometimes they pop up other places too

[blindreper1179]

Re: deductive logic vs inductive logic

I was being serious. =(

[Artic_counter]

Re: deductive logic vs inductive logic

Induction has, in my opinion, done more for the world than deduction. In fact, a lot of deduction arguments (in scientific fields) are possible due to the existence of theoritical models. Models which were created using induction (statistics and/or probability).

While premises and axioms may be regarded as approximations and semi-truths, they are incredibly usefull in practice. Baye's theorem, for exemple, is godly usefull in practice.

[stargroup100]

Re: deductive logic vs inductive logic

I think it's a malformed question because we need to agree on the scope of which "logic" is applied.

I use deductive logic whenever I'm constructing a sentence or reading a sentence. I'm using deductive logic whenever I use any kind of mathematical construct (2+2=4).

I use inductive logic every time I stand up and walk. I use inductive logic every time I choose to eat and eat food.

Of course this is a bit nitpicky, but the point is that we need to agree on what qualifies as each kind of logic in this case and under what contexts. And even then I don't think that's really easy or even possible to do.


Even if it wasn't a malformed question, ultimately I think it's a meaningless one as well. The foundation of all sciences is inductive reasoning. However, the models we use to understand and use science must utilize deductive reasoning. Why do we care which one has done more? What practical real world advantage can we gain by knowing the answer to this question?

[FoJaR]

Re: deductive logic vs inductive logic

I think it's a malformed question because we need to agree on the scope of which "logic" is applied.

I use deductive logic whenever I'm constructing a sentence or reading a sentence. I'm using deductive logic whenever I use any kind of mathematical construct (2+2=4).

I use inductive logic every time I stand up and walk. I use inductive logic every time I choose to eat and eat food.

Of course this is a bit nitpicky, but the point is that we need to agree on what qualifies as each kind of logic in this case and under what contexts. And even then I don't think that's really easy or even possible to do.


Even if it wasn't a malformed question, ultimately I think it's a meaningless one as well. The foundation of all sciences is inductive reasoning. However, the models we use to understand and use science must utilize deductive reasoning. Why do we care which one has done more? What practical real world advantage can we gain by knowing the answer to this question?

that's my question for all of philosophy...

[FoJaR]

Re: deductive logic vs inductive logic

i dont really mean that. some of philosophy is useful.

but philosophers are rarely useful.

[stargroup100]

Re: deductive logic vs inductive logic

that's my question for all of philosophy...

That doesn't make your question any less useless or meaningless.

[Arch0wl]

Re: deductive logic vs inductive logic

What do you mean by "done more for the world"? advanced humanity technologically? given us a better understanding of reality, independent of technological application? made us happier?

The world doesn't give a shit if we're here or not. Logics are just methodologies we make up to make sense of reality. You'd need to define your criteria more specifically before you can talk about which system has done more, because otherwise the criteria are left to be interpreted by the unconscious biases of the reader and one person may not have the same criteria as you.

[FoJaR]

Re: deductive logic vs inductive logic

lets talk about criteria

[stargroup100]

Re: deductive logic vs inductive logic

You're the one that brought up the question, and nobody here seems to think this question is meaningful or useful, so you should be the first one to refine your question before any of us can respond in any way.

And I still don't see the point in even discussing this, because you still haven't explained how this is even remotely practical in any sense of the word.

[stargroup100]

Re: deductive logic vs inductive logic

It would be stupid of me to start a thread with a question such as "Are we more experiencing reality or existing in it?" and then when called out for being a dumb question no one can understand, then say "Okay, you guys tell me what this means then."

[FoJaR]

Re: deductive logic vs inductive logic

or you could take what i say at face value, and maybe think of what criteria is relevant, or maybe break your argument down based on critera.

or you could be an asshole.

[FoJaR]

Re: deductive logic vs inductive logic

What do you mean by "done more for the world"? advanced humanity technologically? given us a better understanding of reality, independent of technological application? made us happier?

i would argue that induction has done more for all of the examples you gave. you can induce that 2+2=4, and in a lot of ways, that's exactly how we learn that 2+2=4, we see it happen more than once and learn that that's how it is.

most things that can be found deductively are learned or proven via induction.

The world doesn't give a shit if we're here or not. Logics are just methodologies we make up to make sense of reality. You'd need to define your criteria more specifically before you can talk about which system has done more, because otherwise the criteria are left to be interpreted by the unconscious biases of the reader and one person may not have the same criteria as you.

that's fine, if someone else has different criteria i'd like to hear what they are.