deductive logic vs inductive logic

[FoJaR]

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

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.

alright how about human technological advancement

[FoJaR]

Originally Posted by 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.


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.

if you dont care, dont post.

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

now if there was ever a vague and unanswerable question, it is this one.

[stargroup100]

Originally Posted by FoJaR

now if there was ever a vague and unanswerable question, it is this one.

No it's actually very clear. All I need is any kind of demonstrable effect as a result of the answer to the question.

For example, we do care about the properties of electrons because we can use that information to create technology that we can use. We don't care whether or not there exists a unicorn flying outside of the universe because living assuming it exists is exactly the same as living assuming it doesn't exist. The answer to this question literally does not impact anyone's life.

[FoJaR]

that's a red herring. it has nothing to do with the OP.

try again?

[stargroup100]

It doesn't address your actual question, but it's a way of asking why your question even matters. If your question is meaningless, then we don't need to answer it in the first place. So it's not irrelevant.

Otherwise, I could ask any meaningless question, and when someone points it out I could just say "that's a red herring". It doesn't work that way.

[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?

see, deductive logic might lead you to this conclusion, but i've had lots of discussions about topics that are vague, or topics whose application isn't readily apparent that end up being interesting and insightful, and give a practical real world advantage, to use your words.

inductive logic would tell me that this topic, however vague, is probably worth discussing.

[stargroup100]

What has done more for the world, existence or causality?

[stargroup100]

Thinking that something vague might be worth discussing is the result of deductive logic. Knowing that this topic is not worth discussing is the result of inductive logic.

see what i did there?

[FoJaR]

Originally Posted by stargroup100

Thinking that something vague might be worth discussing is the result of deductive logic.

how so?

Knowing that this topic is not worth discussing is the result of inductive logic.

see what i did there?

then dont discuss it?

[stargroup100]

Originally Posted by FoJaR

then dont discuss it?

i enjoy toying with you if you havent noticed

[stargroup100]

Originally Posted by FoJaR

see, deductive logic might lead you to this conclusion

How so?

[FoJaR]

Originally Posted by stargroup100

i enjoy toying with you if you havent noticed

yeah, you like flaming in the CT forum, i get it.

[FoJaR]

Originally Posted by stargroup100

How so?

you're right, there isnt any logic that validates your statement.

it's a baseless claim.

[FoJaR]

broad questions are no less valid, and whether or not something is meaningful is subjective. whether or not you get any practical real world advantage is almost impossible to quantify.

you should narrow the scope of your criticism.

[stargroup100]

Whether or not something uses deductive logic or inductive logic is also subjective and impossible to quantify, so your question is still pointless.

[FoJaR]

Originally Posted by stargroup100

Whether or not something uses deductive logic or inductive logic is also subjective and impossible to quantify, so your question is still pointless.

how is that subjective?

[stargroup100]

Originally Posted by FoJaR

broad questions are no less valid, and whether or not something is meaningful is subjective.

How is this subjective?

[FoJaR]

what is meaningful to one person might not be meaningful to another person

[stargroup100]

Originally Posted by FoJaR

what is meaningful to one person might not be meaningful to another person

What is inductive logic to you is not what inductive logic is to me. Also subjective.

[FoJaR]

except that's not true