Inductive reasoning is a term I knew from context to generally mean processing something to a logical conclusion but I never looked to find specifically what it means.
If A means part of D is true, B means part of D is true, and C means part of D is true then it seems reasonable to conclude parts of D are true and possibly all of it. Without realizing it, when I've been calling something 'algebraic,' it's the same thing.
With the anti-vaxx team, the premise is knowing about A,B, C but observing if E is true then F is true. Moreover, F obviates D.
The logical flaws in the E --> F flow are obvious but people cling to them like a cat who doesn't want to take a bath. Even if E is refuted, F is still true.
The logic of the online Bubble Queens is a bizarre thing and there's a twist of some perverse kind of feminism in it. Any strike against anti-vaxx is a strike against the Bubble Queen Sisterhood.
(Ed: kind of like the Bene Gesserit?)
Well, just like them ... without magical powers or any kind of a clue or a plan.
We have had the fo' real privilege of knowing some really bright femmes and there's no patronizing of any kind in that as it's the first thing you better learn, Sherlock. These have been some seriously smart females and I've not known any of them to have any views toward Art Bell conspiracy theories.
(Ed: no smart males?)
It's been a privilege to hang with them as well and it's the same observation with that crew. You need to search more remotely to find the real flapjacks.
(Ed: Beverly Hills?)
You're a living GPS, Houdini.
The phenomenon of the Living Luddites gets stranger and stranger, what with De Niro making movies for the cause now. I am better informed than the combined knowledge of the Mayo Clinic.
Well, of course ... silly me. How could I have missed that.
The horror ... the horror ... (larfs).
Individuality turned into a Mount Vesuvius of clinical narcissism. It's really not clear whether the gaga flow from it will stop any time soon ... and Lady Gaga is one of the few who turned out to be coherent.
But maybe she supports anti-vaxx too ... dunno.
If A means part of D is true, B means part of D is true, and C means part of D is true then it seems reasonable to conclude parts of D are true and possibly all of it. Without realizing it, when I've been calling something 'algebraic,' it's the same thing.
With the anti-vaxx team, the premise is knowing about A,B, C but observing if E is true then F is true. Moreover, F obviates D.
The logical flaws in the E --> F flow are obvious but people cling to them like a cat who doesn't want to take a bath. Even if E is refuted, F is still true.
The logic of the online Bubble Queens is a bizarre thing and there's a twist of some perverse kind of feminism in it. Any strike against anti-vaxx is a strike against the Bubble Queen Sisterhood.
(Ed: kind of like the Bene Gesserit?)
Well, just like them ... without magical powers or any kind of a clue or a plan.
We have had the fo' real privilege of knowing some really bright femmes and there's no patronizing of any kind in that as it's the first thing you better learn, Sherlock. These have been some seriously smart females and I've not known any of them to have any views toward Art Bell conspiracy theories.
(Ed: no smart males?)
It's been a privilege to hang with them as well and it's the same observation with that crew. You need to search more remotely to find the real flapjacks.
(Ed: Beverly Hills?)
You're a living GPS, Houdini.
The phenomenon of the Living Luddites gets stranger and stranger, what with De Niro making movies for the cause now. I am better informed than the combined knowledge of the Mayo Clinic.
Well, of course ... silly me. How could I have missed that.
The horror ... the horror ... (larfs).
Individuality turned into a Mount Vesuvius of clinical narcissism. It's really not clear whether the gaga flow from it will stop any time soon ... and Lady Gaga is one of the few who turned out to be coherent.
But maybe she supports anti-vaxx too ... dunno.
2 comments:
I thought inductive was using a specific to explain the general. So the conclusion is developed first and then using a specific to prove the conclusion.
Such as I believe John are jerks. I find one John who I prove is a jerk therefore all Johns are jerks.
A possibly true conclusion but not proven
That's what I see of it as well. If known facts, A, B, and C are true then it follows D may be true as well. I don't believe the conclusion is determined fast but rather the other way around that A,B,C permit that conclusion to be made if Sherlock puts it all together.
I'm not sure what you call 'if one is true then all must be true' logic ... except faulty (larfs).
Post a Comment