I get that, but a 3 permits explosion, which can force anything anywhere. — Hanover
Deduction should allow you to pass, by valid inference, from what you know to what you did not know. Yes?
In mathematics, these elements are well-defined. What do we know? What has been proven. How do we generate new knowledge? By formal proof.
Neither of these elements are so well-defined outside mathematics (and formal logic, of course). There is no criterion for what counts as knowledge, and probably cannot be. And that defect cannot be made up by cleverness in how we make inferences.
I see no reason to question the traditional view. "Our reasonings concerning matters of fact are merely probable," as the man said. There is deduction in math and logic; everyone else has to make do with induction, abduction, probability. — Srap Tasmaner
Deduction should allow you to pass, by valid inference, from what you know to what you did not know. Yes? — Srap Tasmaner
Can we say the conclusion is valid or do we reserve the term "valid" only to argument forms and not to conclusions? — Hanover
Are you claiming that knowledge does not exist outside mathematics? I don't see why "the elements being less well-defined" results in any serious problem here. — Leontiskos
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.