Magnus Anderson

You are focusing too much on specifics. Sort of like Banno. This can be dangerously deceptive. Banno says that induction is invalid which suggests tha...

That's exactly what logical consequence is in the broad sense of the wrong. And here you're defining the concept of logical consequence narrowly.

I can say the same about you. In fact, I'd probably be more right than you are. A lot of people think they understand what they are talking about; and...

Maybe you should start paying attention to what other people are saying. I've already said that every conclusion is empirically (or semantically) unce...

The concept of logical necessity has been mystified. In order to demystify it we must first understand that a logical argument is nothing more than a ...

It makes sense to me to say that objects that are defined to be infinite in scope are impossible to be described in entirety. It makes sense because i...

I think that inspiration is irrelevant to understanding how reasoning works. Intuition, on the other hand, is a poorly defined term that for the most ...

That's my point: observations together with the process of generalization which you call "pattern recognition combined with inspiration/intuition". Th...

Not true. Here's an inductive argument: 1. Some Ps are Qs 2. Therefore, all Ps are Qs The conclusion necessarily follows from the premise. You cannot ...

Reasoning isn't merely about making observations. A mass of observations will mean nothing to you if you cannot generalize from them. Logic is the stu...

Not really. If I define logical validity broadly to mean that an argument is valid if and only if it logically follows from the premises (i.e. if it d...

It's a matter of how he defines words. If he defines validity narrowly to mean truth-preserving validity, i.e. that an argument is valid if and only i...

Why is it wrong? Because one of its premises is "every swan in the future must be of the same color every swan in the past was"? That's based on the f...

What I did is I made induction more explicit.

The point is that in the following argument it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false: 1. All swans in the past were...

The fact that you ignore unspoken premises. My response was this: And yours?

What you did is called backpedalling. You were wrong in this post of yours: You never addressed that.

No, I am saying that induction must be invalid . . . because you say so. Now you sound like a mystic.

It must be.

Again, logical conclusions, whether they are deductive or inductive, are empirically uncertain which means they can turn out to be wrong regardless of...

That's true. And that applies to induction too. It applies to any kind of algorithm. If you want an algorithm to be able to map its inputs to its outp...

Inductive reasoning operates according to some set of rules. This is obvious from the fact that some conclusions are permitted (e.g. that every swan i...

Sure, it is not valid. Because you say so. We'll leave it at that.

An argument is logically valid if it does not violate the rules of reasoning. Both deduction and induction must follow some rules of reasoning. This i...

That's what I thought. I merely wanted to confirm it. Yes, Popper hated induction. A lot of people think there's a problem with induction. They think ...

He was a staunch opponent of induction. The purpose of thinking is to generalize. A theory (what he calls a hypothesis) can fit the data very well but...

DEDUCTION 1. If it rains, the grass gets wet. 2. It rained. 3. Therefore, the grass is wet. ABDUCTION 1. The grass is wet. 2. If it rains, the grass g...

I would more than like to. The problem is I have no clue what metaphysics is. What is it? I've heard stories about it but they never made any sense an...

Can you prove a negative? If so, how do you do it? By showing that there is no evidence supporting the claim, right? Negatives are problematic. They c...

I have nothing against the concept. I am just trying to understand why you place so much emphasis on it. I don't see why such a concept is relevant. T...

Syntactic certainty, or logical validity, isn't unique to deduction. Here's an example of inductive argument that is logically invalid: 1. Every swan ...

True. I prefer to think in terms of Zebra puzzle. When someone says "deduction" I imagine think of this puzzle (that noone can solve except for genuis...

I've read your posts and I am currently trying to make sense out of them. In the mean time, I want to ask you a very simple question in order to make ...

Side-question. I do not come from a philosophical background. I might be interested in philosophical problems and I might be willing to try to solve t...

I think that epistemology, or more simply logic, should be the study of thinking (which I define to be the process of forming beliefs or assumptions.)...

I agree with you. I think this is the case of not understanding the question. The question is: what causes us to think in a particular manner where "p...

I have yet to see the relevance of introducing the third type of reasoning that is abductive (or retroductive) reasoning. It does more to obscure than...

My preference is to define the concept of thinking so broadly that it refers to a kind of phenomenon that does not have to be accompanied by brain let...

No, I don't. I don't own any of Wittgenstein's books. I made an attempt to understand Tractatus once but without much luck. I find Bertrand Russell to...

The next step is belief revision. The belief I am revising is "the subject of this thread is . . ."

Let's make it simple. If you agree that it is possible that our memories can turn out to be wrong, we are on the same page. Because that's all I am sa...

My point is that you can question your memory. For example, I remember the sensation of my fingers hitting the keys on my keyboard just a few moments ...

I think I have to state this in order to clarify my position. I do not refuse to acknowlede that I have hands. I do have hands. I don't doubt that. Wh...

Sure, plain old truth is attainable and there is nothing wrong with saying that it is true that Paris is the capital of France.

Why do you think I am so fond of Popper? Popper wanted to pursue truth for its own sake. He had a problem with the idea that some of us, not daring to...

What does it mean that we are caused to believe some propositions? I very much notice the emphasis on the word "caused". What's so special about it? I...

But you are saying there are bedrock propositions that are not subject to skeptical scrutiny. I am not saying say so. It appears that you believe ther...

I have yet to understand your position fully but my current impression is that this isn't the right solution. The right solution is to understand that...

Not meaningless but simply difficult to understand. If I am not speaking in a language that is familiar to you, does that mean that what I am saying i...

It's what is known as "ontology" in AI, isn't it? I don't like that term either. Very strange. But I understand that it's basically just a bounded pos...