Fifty
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
warpus said:
Would you mind illustrating to me how it is ridiculous, or are you just going to resort to baseless dismissal now as a way to avoid the issue?
Creationism - an example
- Thread starter carlosMM
- Start date
Would you mind illustrating to me how it is ridiculous, or are you just going to resort to baseless dismissal now as a way to avoid the issue?
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Does anyone seriously postulate that we prove scientific theories with INDUCTION?
Give me one good reason why you'd want to do something so foolish? First of all, it'd be impossible to prove anything - we'd need ALL POSSIBLE DATA to formulate such a proof.. and second of all.. uhm.. why induction?
Give me one good reason why you'd want to do something so foolish? First of all, it'd be impossible to prove anything - we'd need ALL POSSIBLE DATA to formulate such a proof.. and second of all.. uhm.. why induction?
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Fifty said:
The statement: "Prove that the discovery of electronics was driven by scientific reasoning" is a pretty ridiculous request, as there's plenty of historical evidence that proves that it was.. and no evidence against it.
Fifty
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
warpus said:
I am not asking for a deductive proof. And yes, science is based on inductive reasoning. Maybe you don't know what inductive reasoning is?
"an inductive argument is one that attempts to establish its conclusion with some degree of probability"
How is that different from scientific reasoning?
Fifty
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
warpus said:
Using an inductive argument to prove the validity of inductive arguments is an elementary fallacy.
EDIT: dinner now, be back in ~1hr
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Alright man, spell out our point more clearly.. or maybe start a new thread with it as the subject..
This sounds pretty interesting, but you're presenting your point in such an obscure way that it's just flying straight over my head.. and i'm tired!
This sounds pretty interesting, but you're presenting your point in such an obscure way that it's just flying straight over my head.. and i'm tired!
punkbass2000
Des An artiste
Fifty said:
It is not necessary in that scenario that the charismatic politician knows that acting emotional will gain support. He can achieve the ends that you and I are deeming logical without being the least bit cognizant of the situation.
Fifty
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
punkbass2000 said:
True dat! However, that's just an unconscious personality trait (like having a bad temper or something), and so I didn't think it would fall under the sort of illogical behavior that BJ (if I understand him correctly) was trying to point out. If it is just a born-in natural trait that he is not aware of, then it isn't any form of reasoning at all, it's just blind chance.
Fifty
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
warpus said:Alright man, spell out our point more clearly.. or maybe start a new thread with it as the subject..
This sounds pretty interesting, but you're presenting your point in such an obscure way that it's just flying straight over my head.. and i'm tired!
It seems pretty relevent to the current discussion in this thread. Unless carlosmm wanted to steer it back towards citing wacky creationist articles, in which case of course I'd comply with his request.
It si not blind chance. More likely a combination of genes, which such a person would be aware of by the itme they were an adult. Charismatic leaders use their charisma to further the willingness of others who have already been entangled by it and to entice more people tpo follow.Fifty said:
Fifty
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Birdjaguar said:
In that case, then he is aware of and exploitive of his charasmatic nature, and that means he is using Inductive Logic. Perfectly logical
You guys may notice that I'm sortof switching sides back and forth here. When we're talking superficials, I'll argue that logic is the only mode of good reasoning. When we get foundational, however, as with my conversation with warpus, I will contend that even logic is wholly baseless.
punkbass2000
Des An artiste
Fifty said:In that case, then he is aware of and exploitive of his charasmatic nature, and that means he is using Inductive Logic. Perfectly logical
It does not necessarily follow from BJ's post that the fictional character is aware of his charismatic nature.
Fifty
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
punkbass2000 said:
He insinuated that he does in post #130.
The point is that if he IS aware of it, then it's inductive logic. If he is NOT aware of it, then it's just blind chance and shouldn't be classified as any form of reason.
punkbass2000
Des An artiste
Given that we're establishing a scenario where emotion would better serve one than reason, the fact that it is without reason bolsters my point. So we're in agreement?
Fifty
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
punkbass2000 said:
But in that scenario (where the guy is unaware of his charisma) he is not "using" emotion as a tool, he is simply acting normally. And even in that scenario, I would say that logical reasoning would still serve him better than just "acting normally", because if he were logical and aware of his abilities he would hone, develop, and exploit them in a manner that an unaware person cannot.
( I love this discussion btw!
)
punkbass2000
Des An artiste
Well, I think we're at a bit of an impasse for that line of discussion. I do stil think there is some interesting things here. As I alluded to betazed, sure, logic may get you "objectively" better results. But I suggest that being completely logical and making lots of money (or whatever goal you may have) will ultimately leave you unhappy, whereas being an ignorant fool with next to nothing may well leave you as content as any.
Fifty
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
punkbass2000 said:
So if your idea of a good life is one in which you "go with the flow", and you make sure not to strictly dedcate yourself to any goal or ideal or whatever, you are being quite logical in living that "ignorant" life
EDIT: I must pack away my computer now!!! Cya guys in a few days or something!
punkbass2000
Des An artiste
No, that's not quite it, but I'm not quite certain I can express what I'm getting at. It may be fair to say that any scenario which can be meaningfully discussed favours logic.
Japher
Voted for Bush
tell that to my wife
Timko
King
I haven't read beyond the first page, but why would religious people look for evidence for `Noah's' flood? Doesn't the Bible sort of say that there is no proof of God's work, as proof denies faith? Isn't it wrong of religious people to look for proof?
Similar threads
