Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 3:03
AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Tragedy of
Human Effort
Since no one else has come forward to correct
John's misconceptions about inductive versus deductive reasoning, I contradict
even though my resources for carrying through are still a bit
feeble.
I agree with John that just how Douglas came upon
his ideas and analysis is not critical in evaluating how well they
work.
But to say that Sherlock Holmes represents
inductive thinking is to get things in reverse. The Holmes stories are
examples of deductive logic. Inductive reasoning is of the kind that
infers from repetitive instances a rule that the instances will continue to
recur, because it is a law of nature. It is the kind of reasoning that
led the authors of Genesis to infer that species breed true because God
designed them that way and therefore needed to save them in the Ark.
This kind of thinking was a deterrent to acceptance of more complete theories
of species and their evolution in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Keith Wilde
---- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 6:59
PM
Subject: RE: [socialcredit] Tragedy of
Human Effort
Believe it or not, the best example of inductive reasoning comes from the
Sherlock Holmes novels.
Collect date, organise it to make it better understandable, get rid of
the obviously wrong answers, and go and have a good sleep, por play a
violin, or indulge in hectic sport, or... The subconscious mind will come up
with ideas. Treat each destructively to see if it can be
eliminated. The one that can't be is probably the best, until new data
requires it to be modified. It doesn't matter a stuff where Douglas'
analysis comes from or what are its likely causes. Treated inductively
it remains by far the best explanation of events last century.
And I believe the various different definitions of money invented by
orthodox economists were attempts to get away from it, but surprisingly each
seems to confirm it more.
Refgards. John R.
From: Triumphofthepast@aol.com
Reply-To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
Subject: [socialcredit] Tragedy of
Human Effort
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 08:04:52 EST
"It can be tested
inductively in that it explains events over the last century that are
inexplicable using the alternative. . . . Nothing is proved by
induction. But the opposite stands clearly disproved." (Joh
n)
That's what I said, I think. However, I thought it worth
taking some trouble to identify (1) What is the phenomenon to be
explained? and (2) What exactly IS the hypothesis?
Michael
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
You're subscribed to this list with the email johngrawson@hotmail.com
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
Shop ‘til you drop at XtraMSN Shopping
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
You're subscribed to this list with the email nschwartz@cogeco.ca
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
You're subscribed to this list with the email cymric@xtra.co.nz
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
