[ 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.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 1.18 MB, 1928x4006, 1273549175316.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3975543 No.3975543 [Reply] [Original]

2.2 MB
Niacin 07/26/13(Fri)06:29 No.3970236

Does anyone else 'not believe' in deductive logic? I have just found the definition now and have simply discovered that I have not used it to make any logical conclusions. It simply isn't useful or 'real'. One thing can't prove another simply by analogy, unless in that specific class of things or system, it is suggested by a pattern of inducted examples. Then, it becomes a candidate for inductive verification. Deduction is useful for ideation, that is, determining what should be tested next as per a 'greedy algorithm' such that a specific pattern of things may then be inducted into a larger system for use, but it has not true truth value in any way. My reasoning stands as per a Kantian epistemological position. Demonstrate that I am wrong.


When posted this before the only response i got was:

' Epistemology don't exist, kiddo'

>> No.3975553

Sounds like the dude has no idea what Logic is and what it is about. Wikipedia knowledge all over the damn post. He's also dumb.

>> No.3975574

>>3975543
>axioms are true in all possible worlds

>> No.3975705

I didn't reply because I just couldn't get the word 'moron' out of my post. I tried but it just wouldn't go away. Must be something wrong with my computer.

>> No.3975731

>>3975543
>1. deductive reasoning depends on analogies to make logical conclusions.
>2. analogies alone cannot be the basis for proof
>3. therefore deductive reasoning cannot be the basis for proof

oh fuck

>> No.3975739

>>3975543
1/10 troll

>> No.3975956

>Search for Stendhal's The Red and The Black
>If I didn't find it, it'd call BS and throw a tantrum
>But it's okay, the list is legit, I found it