Talk:Inductive reasoning
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 10:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Propose move of this article
Consistent title (cf deductive reasoning and abductive reasoning) -- infinity0 23:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Special:Whatlinkshere/Induction (philosophy) - quite a lot of articles link to inductive reasoning already, which is a redirect to this current page. -- infinity0 23:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- Support Go for it. Simoes 14:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- Support as per nom. David Kernow 17:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- Support, I think. I got confused trying to follow the history of previous relocations and indirections, but it seems like the basic content of the article was once before at a pre-re-directed article Inductive reasoning? Jon Awbrey 17:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit] jargon
In the introduction of the article, the term "tokens" is used without explanation. Could the writer please explain it or use a simpler term? Peter Johnson 64.231.45.249 04:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] abduction
I find the sentence (in the section ==Validity==)
The writer John Barnes outlined a third method of reasoning, called "abduction", in his book Finity ...
highly questionable. --Arno Matthias 23:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- And so it has been removed. Feel free to be a little bold the next time a random anon adds nonsense to an article. Simões (talk/contribs) 00:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- ...well... I haven't read "Finity"... maybe it is pure genius... --Arno Matthias 14:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] References
This article states many facts, of who said what, without proper citations, of where and when. Please help to improve. - 89.247.34.119 20:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Unclear explanation - "strong induction"
The explanation for the following example of "strong induction" seems unclear:
"All observed crows are black. therefore All crows are black. This exemplifies the nature of induction: inducing the universal from the particular. However, the conclusion is not certain. Unless we can systematically verify the possibility of crows of another color, the statement may actually be false."
The problem is that the syntax of the final sentence--which I take to mean that we can legitimately conclude "all crows are black" from the fact that "all observed crows are black" ONLY if "we can systematically verify the [IMPOSSIBILITY] of crows of another color"--makes it difficult to untangle the logic of the resulting statement. If I follow the argument correctly, I believe the sentence should read: "Unless we can systematically verify the IMPOSSIBLITY of crows of another color, the statement may actually be false."
Califgrll 21:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
