----- Original Message ----- From: "Acme Prognostics" <LFine.ap@ZAPTHISgmail.com> Newsgroups: sci.logic,alt.philosophy,sci.physics,sci.math,alt.atheism Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 7:31 AM Subject: Re: What are cause and effect?
> > huge <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> >>In any argument involving the physical world, pragmatic considerations, >>and history of success have to be considered when judging the value of >>particular kinds of observations, experiments, and arguments. > > Thanks for such a good explanation of this crucial aspect.
Sry, but on this one I think I will side with the opposition. I think Patrayme has made it abundantly clear that They are not talking about any opposition to the workings of applied science, or the use of the hypothetico-deductive method in it, and do not need any stones to be kicked for thus to refute them etc. ...
Patrayme are talking strictly about the form of arguments as used i formal logic. Their main concern is the interpretation of the aristotelian syllogism. One such concern is the proposition that validity stems from form; which we all agree holds for deductive arguments.
Now, as far as I have been able to archaeologize the mind of Patrayme, they seem to think that the syllogistc form _is_ the deductive form, and that, hence, the inductive lacks its own inductive form, the syllogism being already taken by deduction.
Personally, I think that
- the syllogistic form is induction/deduction neutral - the diff. is in the scope of the maior: - deduction: if it is a universal truth, then the syllogism becomes deductive, as the work that the minor does, is to identify a specific case in point as to be subsumed under the maior; which subsumption, when stated, is the conclusion. - induction: when none of the premises are universal truths, but probabilistic approximations, then the syllogism becomes an inductive one - however, even the inductive syllogism has the syllogistic form, like ponens or tollens, or a figure, like Barbara or Celarent or Darii etc. - on that view, induction does indeed not have a different _form_; the difference (according to me, and some of youse guys examples) are in the _scope of the truth value_ of one of the premises.
The difference, then between Patrayme and us others is - NOT an opposition to induction (in science or elsewhere); that is a pseudo-difference brought on by bad reading and smug scientism; - the view that deduction "owns" the syllogistic form.
Now, the latter could be a simple brain puncture, leading to such parlour tricks as "all induction can be shown to be deduction if we uncover all the premises"); on the other hand, perhaps Patrayme is a deep and unrecognized genius who truly has discovered a snippet of a corner of a new insight, which is a fekkin' good job, in a field thrashed to death for 2500 years. It is this benefit-of-the-doubt hope-for-the-upside that keeps me interested.
That is why I am interested in the interpretation of "logicity", because obviously, this is the black box where the interesting goings-on are going on. If this is a mere identity statement between "deduction" and "syllogism" .... well ...
But if there is also a cat in there .... and we open the box ..... guys!