>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.

Reply via email to