Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctordick
I am sorry but you seem to have missed the very essence of my post. The issue which I tried to raise is the fact that there are two very different paths capable of getting from evidence to conclusion and that neither path is sufficient standing alone. And, yes, rationality is the quality of the conclusion. My point being that rationality can not be achieved without recognizing not only the two paths but also the inherent benefits and problems associated with each of them.
Have fun -- Dick
|
I apologize if I missed the point. My intent was to frame the context, and then, as we get on the same page about meanings, we can get to the point.
In another post, here
http://hypography.com/forums/philoso...cience-14.html, at #136, I discussed the two paths: the induction and deduction; and their respective nature and benefits. In science, one of the two paths must be pursued: either inductive or deductive. IMO, the inductive path is always preferred, because it is based on empirical probabilities. Deduction should be used only when induction will not do; but neither path can be disregarded.
OFF TOPIC:
I've been thinking about your use of the sigma function in Schrodinger. My question is this: Does your use of the sigma function operate to quantize the fundamental equation? If so, does that imply that spacetime as a medium is quantized in its essence?
