[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 411 KB, 1920x1080, original[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15550336 No.15550336 [Reply] [Original]

The "logic" of science: Using inductive reasoning I have observed that every cat I have seen has fur, so I conclude that all cats have fur, this is now a principle and I will then go on to use deductive reasoning and say "all cats have fur, a sphynx is a cat, therefor a sphynx has fur".

>> No.15550339

You will never be a smart white men

>> No.15550343

>>15550336
No, the actual logic of The Science is to either conclude "all cats have fur except sphynx but I still get to say that all cats have fur" or that sphynx have invisible dark hair in curled up spatial dimensions that makes them technically furry

>> No.15550344

>>15550336
That's the logic of literary criticism or politics, not science.

>> No.15550347

>>15550344
Please tell me how science doesn't begin with inductive reasoning

>> No.15550348

>>15550336
the correct conclusion would actually be that a sphinx does not have fur and therefore a sphinx is not a cat

>> No.15550349

>>15550344
It's not the logic of any of those.

>> No.15550355

>>15550336
What? It's
> All cats have fur.
> Sphynx does not have fur.
> Therefore, Sphynx is not a cat.
And, of course, if all sorts of cat-like beings without fur turn up, premise 1 would be reevaluated anyway.

>> No.15550358

>>15550336
>so I conclude that all cats have fur
false
>all cats have fur, a sphynx is a cat, therefor a sphynx has fur
if you know the existence of sphynxs then "all cats have fur" in not a valid postulate

>> No.15550388

>>15550347
That's not inductive reasoning, it's word-thinking.
>>15550349
Of course it is. Both of those work by imagining
1. if you describe something with a word,
2. if you describe something else with the same word,
3. then you can transfer any random property of the first thing to the second.
This is literally how 100% of political news and art criticism works.

>> No.15550399

>>15550388
The laws of planetary motion were derived from observations of planetary positions and motion. Kepler formulated empirical laws that described the patterns he observed, such as planetary orbits and the relationship between a planet's distance from the sun and its orbital period.Like it or not that was all inductive reasoning. "The sun will rise again tomorrow" is inductive reasoning. Science does not have an objective basis of truth and it stands to reason that the application of these "laws" can lead us further astray from the actual truth.

>> No.15550406

>>15550336
how original
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_horses_are_the_same_color
>The "horses" version of the paradox was presented in 1961 in a satirical article by Joel E. Cohen. It was stated as a lemma, which in particular allowed the author to "prove" that Alexander the Great did not exist, and he had an infinite number of limbs.
and you didn0t have the balls of going anywhere near what the horse guy did, shame on you

>> No.15550418

This is the basics of science.

>> No.15550438

>>15550399
>"The sun will rise again tomorrow" is inductive reasoning.
And has fuck all to do with trying to transfer hair from one thing to another simply by describing both things with the same word.

>> No.15550439

>>15550336
The sphynx isn't a cat. It's a stone monument built to depict a mythological creature that is part cat, part human.
You are confusing a literary image with a scientific category. You are playing word games. You are retarded.

>> No.15550443

>>15550439
Not him but that's sphinx with an i.

>> No.15550451 [DELETED] 

>>15550438
You could can a sphynx is not a cat from the that reasoning just as well - the point being is creating laws from observation can potentially lead to false conclusions.

>> No.15550455

You could say a sphynx is not a cat with that reasoning just as well - the point being is creating laws from observation can potentially lead to false conclusions.

>> No.15550710
File: 19 KB, 306x306, 1688850830004.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15550710

>it's the year 2023 and philosotards still get caught in infantile word games and fail to understand basic epistemology

>> No.15550733

>>15550710
It's particularly embarrassing because it's the kind of nonsense that greeks or chinks had mostly sorted out some 2500 years ago but modern subhumans parade it around as some "THIS IS WHY NO ONE CAN KNOW ANYTHING" gotcha

>> No.15550886

>>15550347
What is Kant's Transcendental Dialectic for 500 please

>> No.15551127
File: 1.91 MB, 550x308, IMG_9165.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15551127

>>15550336
> So far, literally for every x *I have seen thus far*, P(x) holds; therefore, I predict that for the next x I come across the same will hold true.
> Wait, so you think that this is true for all x?!

>> No.15551206

>>15550710
>philosotards
not even, this is just /x/ "intellectuals" and "deep thinkers"

>> No.15551216

>>15550336
See it falls apart when your logic doesn't line up with observation, you can't just make things up, they still have to be true. Hope this helps!

>> No.15551554

>>15550336
>so I conclude that all cats have fur,
that's your bad luck so far
>this is now a principle
and now the retardation begins. no, it's not a principle. all you have is still 'all the cats I've seen so far have fur'. it's a you problem.

>> No.15551599

>>15550336
maybe you should try going back to elementary school and working on what means "the scientific method." brown person.