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]

seduction

[FoJaR]

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

[blindreper1179]

I was being serious. =(

[Artic_counter]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by stargroup100

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]

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

but philosophers are rarely useful.

[stargroup100]

Originally Posted by FoJaR

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

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

[Arch0wl]

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]

lets talk about criteria

[stargroup100]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

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.

[stargroup100]

Originally Posted by stargroup100

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.

Originally Posted by FoJaR

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.

You literally just completely ignored my post. My post directly responds to yours that came after.

You really should take some time reading into what other people are saying instead being totally nonsensical and expect us to play your shitty little game.

Because I can play this game too. Completely ignoring your points to just repeat mine ad nauseum is easy.

[FoJaR]

Originally Posted by stargroup100

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.

strange because i've had a few legitimate responses.

why is practicality necessary?

[reuben_tate]

Originally Posted by FoJaR

proven via induction.

Just to make things clear, proof by induction (i.e. mathematical induction) is actually a deductive argument and not an inductive argument.

It's a bit unfortunate that the terminology that's used doesn't fill well together.

EDIT: Also, you can deductively prove that 2+2=4 if you define things well enough.

[Arch0wl]

Originally Posted by FoJaR

lets talk about criteria

I just asked you to do that, when I said that we can't even answer your question until we know what "doing things for the world" means. If you want people to propose their own criteria, that's fine I guess, but they'll basically be re-phrasing your question for you and answering their own question themselves.

Also, I gave you examples off the top of my head. There are innumerable things someone could mean by "done things for the world", and are by no means limited to the examples I gave you.

[stargroup100]

Your responses simply restate what you originally said, and do not add anything new. I explained the problem with your original statement, and so you should either revise your original statement or explain the problem with my criticism, and you did neither.

Originally Posted by FoJaR

why is practicality necessary?

Simply because I need a reason to care. If you told me that something existed but no one will ever be able to detect it or interact with it, then it doesn't affect my life in any way and so I have no use for something like that.

In what way will knowing the answer to this question affect anyone's life?