PDA

View Full Version : Predictions



shogun7
01-01-2005, 07:21 AM
To assert that a theory is unscientific, is not necessarily to hold that it is unenlightening, still less that it is meaningless, for it sometimes happens that a theory which is unscientific (because it is unfalsifiable) at a given time may become falsifiable, and thus scientific, with the development of technology, or with the further articulation and refinement of the theory. Further, even purely mythogenic :confused: explanations have performed a valuable function in the past in expediting our understanding of the nature of reality. :D

Brian_UK
03-01-2005, 12:15 AM
..... in the past in expediting our understanding of the nature of reality. :DOh, good, I'm soooo pleased to learn that :confused:

shogun7
03-01-2005, 02:13 AM
To "assert" anything about science is utterly meaningless. To assert is to commit the authority fallacy. To assert is to merely give testament as opposed to provide substantiated proof.

To ensure the ethical conduct of research involving human subjects, to assert comprises items that need to be addressed by investigators applying for approval to conduct a clinical trial. These items are chosen to enable fulfillment of certain universally applicable requirements for the ethical conduct of research: social and scientific value; scientific validity; fair subject selection; favorable risk-benefit ratio; and respect for potential and enrolled subjects.


If something is unscientific then it is likely that that thing is a method insufficiently supported by first principles. Or it is a phenomena that by experiement is difficult to repeat at will.

"...expediting our understanding of the nature of reality"

What the heck is the nature of reality? What the heck is reality?

Here's a fucfing answer :eek:
Although the whole of this life were said to be nothing but a dream and the physical world nothing but a phantasm, I should call this dream or phantasm real enough, if, using reason well, we were never deceived by it. Gottfried Whilhem Leibniz, (1646-1716) In J. R. Newman (ed.) The World of Mathematics, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1956.



Perhaps you mean that it, the theory, might temporarily suffice to interpret, in a communicable fashion, nature as she appears relative to currently available first principles of explaination "A Paradigm".
No! you got it wrong AGAIN! :rolleyes:

There was a time when it was sufficient to postulate that what made the sun revolve around the earth were behind it angels gently but incesantly beating their wings. GEE no **** IRENE?

So what? Is there a point? NO not for a twit like you :eek:

eggs
03-01-2005, 05:08 PM
it's good to see everything back to normal.

happy new year all.

cheers

eggs

shogun7
04-01-2005, 02:10 AM
In case anyone wonders why exactly Aristotle bothered with the "moods" of syllogism. He tried to create rules and systems to facilitate clear thinking and to expose awry reasoning.

For instance, 3 of his Fallacies. (He called all errors of reasoning "Fallacies")

Denying the Antecedent:
A --> B
-A
Therefore -B

If shogun is running, then he is moving.
Shogun is not running.
Therefore, he is not moving.

The Fallacy is that just because shogun is not running it doesn't necessarily follow that he is not moving, he could be scratching his arse on the grass.

Affirming the Consequent:
A --> B
B
Therefore, A

If shogun is running, then he is moving.
Shogun is moving.
Therefore, he is running.

Again, it is not necessarily true that since shogun is moving he has to be running, he is still more likely going to be moving merely on account of his itchy arse.


The Undistributed Middle:
Several Nazis were members of the Kaiser Club.
Shogun was a member of the Kaiser Club.
Therefore, Shogun was a Nazi.

Again, fallacious reasoning, it does not necessarily follow that just because Shogun was a member of the club that had Nazi members that he was himself a Nazi. It might simply have been a matter of Shoguns sexual preference for Nazi men.


Equivocation:
Much of British humour follows this formula.
A valid syllogistic argument has 3 terms and 3 terms only.

A valid syllogistic argument would have the following form:

M--P
S--M
_____
S--P

But if the term M is used in two quite different ways then the argument in effect contains 4 terms and is therefore invalid, taking the form:

M--P
S--Q
_____
S--P

Hotdogs are better than nothing,
nothing is better than an eternal life of happiness,
Therefore, Hotdogs are better than an eternal life of happiness.

BTW, I have found that most British unwittingly commit the fallacy of equivocation in a way that indicates their love for humour oftentimes muddles their logic. Like their minds are so used to the routine of equivocation for the sake of humour that their reasoning often forgets to turn it off.

Just an observation, important none the less, but many Brits accuse me of not having a sense of humour because most times when they equivocate, my face straightens with bordom for that very pretictable routine and then my mood turns to annoyance when they smile questioningly at me while I know they are mentally commiting the Fallacy of Misclassification.

Really folks ...What would the poor schlameal do if I didn't pull his miserable chain? :D :D :D I will be back! :cool:
I'm back..What Marc doesn't understand is the fact that at my age and experience is that there is something very different about being at your best once in a while when everything works out … and being at your best by design that is in your control, deliberately and with intention. At those times, in the past at what would have been the worst of times, when everything and everyone seems to be against you, to be at your best regardless. Having your life work the way you want it to be working … operating from the center of yourself … moving out into the world …getting what you want and need … all the while remaining focused, open, calm and ready. ;)
EQUIVOCATE..To beat around the bush? :confused:
I have had symbolic logic and Boolean logic as I have had classes in digital principals and applications. :D In fact, one of my classes is on DDC. So all your logic does not impress this wise old man! :D
Happy new year to all!

Superheatman
04-01-2005, 08:27 AM
I am genuinely impressed by the obvious academic knowledge of the contributors to this thread...I wish I had not wasted so much time at college ...I would like to wish all members a healthy,happy and prosperous new year....the two former being in my opinion the more important....and in closing would just like to mention that
(A) Classification is normally carried out after an observation of the characteristics of a body...observing a reaction to ones own "sense of humour" might be thought of as part of the process of gathering information to make that classification .
(B) Age does not always bring wisdom...(as in my case :-) )

shogun7
06-01-2005, 02:10 AM
From all your preceding posts and those in this thread it seems to me that nothing could be impressioned squarely onto you. Like your brain is absolutely rock hard solid.

If you are teaching HVAC then my Isis, no wonder the Americans that polute hvac-talk.com with their absolute rubbish do so.

What you don't seem to understand is that your posts don't pull my chain, it's that their total lack in substance but for the bits of entirely irrelavant and illogical pieces of random out of place tripe all actually makes me sick.

Why the hell don't you just whoft back over to hvac-talk and hang out with your type?

Can't we all ..just get along :rolleyes: :D

Mark C
06-01-2005, 03:25 PM
Can't we all ..just get along :rolleyes: :D

Apparently not... ;)

shogun7
07-01-2005, 02:52 AM
Inductive and Deductive Reasoning,
Marc OBrion said that " The efforts of all these people came in part out of a need to weed out people like yourself, illogical thinkers, circular reasoners who also, by the way, persistantly commit the Fallacy of Expedience (It doesn't matter how we get there, just as long as we get there, however irrational.).I think it is just too funny that you, of all people, post quotes from famous reasonable persons.
Marc doesn't tell you about human life being full of decisions, including significant choices about what to believe. Although everyone prefers to believe what is true as they see it, we will often disagree with each other about what that is in particular instances. It may be that some of our most fundamental convictions in life are acquired by haphazard means rather than by the use of reason, but we all recognize that our beliefs about ourselves and the world often hang together in important ways. So if I said that I believe that whales are mammals and that all mammals are fish, then it would also make sense for me to believe that whales are fish. Even someone who (rightly!) disagreed with my understanding could appreciate the consistent, reasonable way in which I used my mistaken beliefs as the foundation upon which to establish a new one. On the other hand, if I decide to believe that the Deli Lama was Germain because he lived in Germany, then even someone who shares my belief in the result could point out that I haven't actually provided good reasons for accepting its truth. So when we speak of logic we need to think in terms of Inductive and Dedective reasoning because our primary concern is to evaluate the reliability of inferences, the patterns of reasoning that lead from premises to conclusion in a logical argument. Deductive reasoning says that an argument claims that the truth of its premises guarantees the truth of its conclusion, it. Deductive reasoning holds to a very high standard of correctness. A deductive inference succeeds only if its premises provide such absolute and complete support for its conclusion that it would be utterly inconsistent to suppose that the premises are true but the conclusion false.
This is what Marc would have you believe that we all use in our solutions to the problems we encounter every day, however that's only part of the story. I believe most of us operate in the inductive mode of logic in that when an argument claims merely that the truth of its premises make it likely or probable that its conclusion is also true, it is said to involve inductive inference. The standard of correctness for inductive reasoning is much more flexible than that for deduction. An inductive argument succeeds whenever its premises provide some legitimate (evedence or support) for the truth of its conclusion. Although it is therefore reasonable to accept the truth of that conclusion on these grounds, it would not be completely inconsistent to withhold judgment or even to deny it outright.(As Marc does) Inductive arguments, then, may meet their standard to a greater or to a lesser degree, depending upon the amount of support they supply. No inductive argument is either absolutely perfect or entirely useless, although one may be said to be relatively better or worse than another in the sense that it recommends its conclusion with a higher or lower degree of probability. In such cases, relevant additional information often affects the reliability of an inductive argument by providing other evidence that changes our estimation of the likelihood of the conclusion. This is what I was referring to when I started this post, So Marc "STICK IT IN YOUR EAR! :p

eggs
07-01-2005, 11:06 PM
if you two carry on, i'm going to have to start.
i thought we left all this deductive reasoning behind in Marc's mini-split post.
Nothing is right or wrong in philosophy. It is the subject of Man's search for reality.
To arrive at reality, we can only use the method of deductive reasoning, employing the methods, we, as induviduals have been educated to use.
A philosophers utopia is ultimate knowledge, yet this can never be achieved because, you will never know if you know everthing about everything.
Therefore, my synopsis of this post is "boll*&^s".

behave and shake hands

cheers

eggs

eggs
08-01-2005, 12:17 AM
you need to stop trying to be so logical and take things back to unhypothetic first principles, using the exact sciences.
only then can you be dialectic.
when you are a dialectician, with ultimate knowledge then you can start to expose illogical theories.

if not, in my usual language "there is more than one way to cook an egg" ie there is no right or wrong, only opinions.
and these opinions make the world go round.
without opinions there would be no science, no research and no search for reality/philosophy.

is this deductive reasoning?

cheers

eggs

chillin out
08-01-2005, 12:31 AM
Marc,

If everthing was logical then there would be a 'fix' for all problems. Unfortunatlely there is not.

I agree with what you said here


My top most requirement in life is that those around me are logical.

but not here


To me, the only way to behave is to try being logical and to expose that that is illogical.

I think there are many people that are 'illogical', and it gets on my nerves, but I wouldn`t try to either change them or point out there 'illogical' behavour.And anyway who writes the rules on logic. One man`s logic is another man`s madness.

So my top most requirement in life is that those around me are logical, but the last thing I would ever want to do is upset them or make them feel stupid.

HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERBODY :)

eggs
08-01-2005, 12:45 AM
chillin, looking at you signature. you are a pessimist.
there IS a fix for ALL problems.
in fact a problem is just an opportunity to find a solution.
what we must always remember as fridge men and amateur philosophers is one simple fact:

WE NEVER FAIL, WE JUST FIND WAYS THAT DON'T WORK.

cheers

eggs

eggs
08-01-2005, 02:23 AM
In other words, what you're telling me is "Marc, to be logical you will have to be logical."

this is your conclusion using deductive reasoning of the premis.


It's better to call it speculation.

if you were a dialectician, speculation, would not be in you vocabulary.

i love philosophy, because it is not a science.
when i was doing the old "A levels" i figured that i couldn't fail.
everybody is correct.

cheers

eggs

shogun7
09-01-2005, 01:35 AM
chillin, looking at you signature. you are a pessimist.
there IS a fix for ALL problems.
in fact a problem is just an opportunity to find a solution.
what we must always remember as fridge men and amateur philosophers is one simple fact:

WE NEVER FAIL, WE JUST FIND WAYS THAT DON'T WORK.

cheers

eggs
Yes as in the case of the invention of the light bulb, according to marc's definition of logic Edison was illogical in his premises a lot because he failed to find the truth the first time so should he have just quit? hell no, because if your reasoning is inductive enough times you may find the correct deductive premises to ask and voila "The Truth!!

The fact of the matter is that Deduction and induction by themselves are inadequate for a scientific approach. While deduction gives absolute proof, it never makes contact with the real world, there is no place for observation or experimentation, no way to test the validity of the premises. And, while induction is driven by observation, it never approaches actual proof of a theory. The development of the scientific method involved a gradual synthesis of these two logical approaches. which is of course what I have been saying all along. So I call Marc the digital man you know 0,1; yes and no;on, or, off you see it's not the real world where most of us Analog people live :D

shogun7
09-01-2005, 02:35 AM
Making them feel stupid is somewhat illogical. They need to know they are stupid. That's if they are stupid (WOW hows that for arrogance?)then you owe it to them to show them their stupidity so that they shall know it without doubt. To make them feel stupid is little weak. If you want them to feel stupid then you might quarrel with them. If you want them to know they are stupid then you must argue with them. To quarrel is to get at other people, to argue is to get at the truth.[/QUOTE]


By whose standard is someone stupid, yours? then that assumes that you are a superior intellect in every way, but that is impossible, nobody on the planet can claim that destinction. Now, granted you may be superior in some intellectual endevers, but so is every body else. A man may not know how to read or write but he can run circles around you in getting from point "A" to point "B". I for one certainly don't feel stupid in the slightest just because you may think so :rolleyes:
On the other hand I think you are not stupid ..just ignorant.. about your preceived mental superiority and I feel sorry for you because there is nothing I can say or do to get you to see that all is not balck or white. I can tall you this that you will never find peace until you get a modicum of humility :D

shogun7
09-01-2005, 03:34 AM
My definition of logic? I don't recall giving my definition of logic. However, logicians are concerned with truth. Simply the truth of statements. The truth as it manifests itself in our thinking and language.

Tell me what statements Edison made I might tell you if they were logical.

Most scientific and many technological advancements happen by discovery, by accident. But those in observation understanding the logic of cause and effect find themselves delightedly able to repeat the "mistakes" the essence of making them "advancements". Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
Your defination of logic is stuck on deductive reasoning, that is the purest type, however as I said it doesn't exist in the real world and certainly in the scientific world! :p

shogun7
09-01-2005, 04:51 AM
[QUOTE=Marc O'Brien]Those who make incoherent and illogical statements are considered stupid. All your statements are incoherent and illogical therefore you are stupid.



Yes, since I am able to repeatedly demonstrate the fallacies of your statements I could be considered superior to you. In so far as my definition of logic reaches.



I might make a good example here. The South African universities asserted that since both my english and afrikaans languages were a terrible failure, they would not accept me as a physics student. My school buddies cried shame because they thought if any one of us were to become a great physicist it was me.[/QUOTE}

As I am a compassionate man and I could say something to rip you ...I won't ..except to say I tend to agree with your buddies. you are a pleasure to banter with :D

Abe
09-01-2005, 09:52 PM
The South African universities asserted that since both my english and afrikaans languages were a terrible failure, they would not accept me as a physics student. My school buddies cried shame because they thought if any one of us were to become a great physicist it was me.


I was right after all...........you are gifted with thinking prowess and thought processes conducive to a study of physics......and beyond.

But the "stupid" education systems in Africa prevailing at the time were sticklers for stipulating and adhering to "rules"
Like making us wear boaters and jackets in sweltering heat......

shogun7
10-01-2005, 12:21 AM
This is still all too incoherent, a man who claims to be able to afford compassion in defeat, idiot.
In your wet dreams. :rolleyes: :D

shogun7
12-01-2005, 01:04 AM
quote] marc o'brion "If we are going to quote extracts from websites, let's not extract with such random selectivity, we need to try keep the context"

Yes ..let's do that!
.
A young man named Marc received a parrot as a gift. The parrot had a
bad attitude and an even worse vocabulary. Every word out of the bird's
mouth was rude, obnoxious and laced with profanity. Marc tried and
tried to change the bird's attitude by consistently saying only polite
words, playing soft music and anything else he could think of to "clean
up" the bird's vocabulary.

Finally, Marc was fed up and he yelled at the parrot. The parrot yelled
backMarc shook the parrot and the parrot got angrier and even ruder.
Marc, in desperation, threw up his hand, grabbed the bird and put him in
the freezer. For a few minutes the parrot squawked
and kicked and screamed. Then suddenly there was total quiet. Not a
peep was heard for over a minute.

Fearing that he'd hurt the parrot, Marc quickly opened the door to the
freezer. The parrot calmly stepped out onto Marc's outstretched arms
and said "I believe I may have offended you with my rude language and
actions. I'm sincerely remorseful for my inappropriate transgressions
and I fully intend to do everything I can to correct my rude and
unforgivable behavior." Marc was stunned at the change in the bird's
attitude. As he was about to ask the parrot what had made such a
dramatic change in his behavior, the bird continued, "May I ask what the
turkey did?" :D :D :D