>From a quick gathering of the initial parlance being proffered by yourself & "Chazwin," I'll try to offer some additional sensibilities as they pertain to your initial entry... nowadays, it is generally accepted that both of the "bottom-up" & "top-down" modalities, respectively, are required to gain * systemic* footholds on the hypothetical or tautological landscapes being explored... ergo, both are seen as two sides of the same coin. There is also the practice in the cognitive sciences of *problem mapping* and*paradigmatic exposition * for subsequent evaluation *prior* to the implementation of either of those modalities: *"Asking the right questions is at least as important to the validity as the logistics used to answer them."* >> Therefore, various *projective techniques*, implemented according to the 'demands' of the particular "mapped problems," are then seen as indispensable to *any *"process of investigation."
These "techniques" may be known by varied titles... Most are familiar with "Brainstorming" & "Role Playing," but the other titles with which I'm most familiar are ones like Network Mapping, "Cross-Impact Matrices," Epigenetic Surveys, Scenario Building, Continuity Testing, et.al. >> At any rate, the *purpose & scope* of the these techniques'* instrumentality* is one of *system phenomena "coverage..."* *the whole "no stone unturned" notion*... as though this were even possible, given our inherent system boundedness (dimensional & 'redactively recursive'), but that's yet another "ball of wax." My point is that I'd be interested in discussing the methodological rationales & procedures for any of these techniques... but many *may* feel this is too tangential to purest concerns of this forum's main focus... perhaps a different venue??? If there aren't objections, and someone suggests a specific technique, then I'd readily enter into the discourse. On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 11:52 PM, Scott Mayers <scottmay...@shaw.ca> wrote: > I just wrote this post in sci.logic and thought this would be a good > forum to discuss it too. It seems that many people are > highly invested in the idea that induction is not only a certain means > to gaining truth but that it is somehow superior to deduction. The > reason for this seems sensible. Deduction only asserts that the > conclusion of an argument certainly follows from its premises whereas > it cannot guarantee that the premises themselves are initially true. > An argument can be deductively true yet, in reality, be false. > P1: Amy is male > P2: All males have a Y chromosome > Con:Amy has a Y chromosome [Deductively Valid] > Deduction is actually a term implying that the conclusion is entailed > from the premises. So you can think of deduction as always requiring > the conclusion in the argument and that you work backwards to > determine the premises. This is just what a detective does when he > solves a crime for which he already knows the conclusion. The > detective would ask what 'caused' the conclusion, say, that so-and-so > is dead, for instance? (Of course, this doesn't rule out working from > the evidence to draw conclusions that turn out to be deductive as in > seeking for the criminal) > Induction, on the other hand, can only be absolutely true when the > premises are first known to be completely sampled AND that all the > premises are identical instances AND the conclusion formulates or > generalizes the instances to any new instance. Anything less than 100% > guarantees that the conclusion is NOT ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN. > Generally, only in math and logic dialectic, does induction prove to > show absolute certainty. Technically, I think there is another place > that this can be shown to exist too. But it is subject only to > oneself. Things like being certain of your existence is your truth to > claim absolutely in this way without being denied. This is our > personal undeniable empiricism. > I am skeptical of today's dependence on induction in physics with > contrary and contradictory views on deduction and normal logical > method, how and when proponents choose and choose not to use it. Most > are definitely against arguments based on premises founded on either > logic itself or apriori intuition. Personally, in regards to > mentioning oneself as a perfect observer, you can begin with "I > exist" (no need to determine whether you think or not; if you didn't > then you have no business in the argument) and build your foundation > by creating premises regarding reasoning from your experience. If one > can establish the information sufficiently and correctly, they can > come to draw real conclusions about the real world. [P.S. For those > who are familiar to the critical argument that ended the age of > foundationalism, the "Incompleteness Theorem" by Geodel, he was wrong! > But for > another post.] > Scott Mayers. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Epistemology" group. > To post to this group, send email to epistemol...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<epistemology%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to epistemol...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.