Author Topic: Science's Biggest Problem: The Fallacy of Induction  (Read 3787 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6295
  • Darwins +729/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Science's Biggest Problem: The Fallacy of Induction
« Reply #29 on: March 04, 2012, 11:54:56 PM »
Olivianus

During World War II, a statistician named Abraham Wald was asked to look at the battle damage inflicted on airplanes when they returned from missions. He carefully looked at which parts of the planes were hit, and after finding a pattern to the damage, he made a recommendation. Reinforce the areas that had not been hit.

Counterintuitive? Nope. He reasoned that the planes that had been damaged in those sseemingly unscathed places hadn't returned. The places damaged on the planes that had returned were survivable.

Did you do as complete an analysis of what is wrong with the world before starting this project of yours to figure out and fix everything. Or are you working only on the known bullet holes?
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4758
  • Darwins +543/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Science's Biggest Problem: The Fallacy of Induction
« Reply #30 on: March 05, 2012, 12:23:21 AM »
Hal, not true. I just have a different and much more strict view of knowledge than you do.
Different, yes.  But more strict?  Stating that you rely on special pleading, as you did in another topic, contradicts this, because special pleading is a logical fallacy.  Admitting to relying on a fallacy to support your view of knowledge indicates that it is less strict than a scientific viewpoint, which relies on no such thing.

To put it bluntly, your view of knowledge is so fundamentally blinkered that any and all claims you make are questionable and likely wrong due to lack of proof and inability to prove them.  I've demonstrated this in other topics and see no point in revisiting it here.

Offline Jake

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 210
  • Darwins +9/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • I see what you do there.
    • Pat Condel's Godless Comedy
Re: Science's Biggest Problem: The Fallacy of Induction
« Reply #31 on: March 05, 2012, 12:24:09 AM »

           
            In common speech the problem goes something like this:  When it is raining outside the streets will be wet; The streets are wet, therefore it is raining outside.  This is a fallacy.  The streets could be wet for an infinite number of reasons.


No, they could not, in fact, be wet for an infinite number of reasons, as in the concern of infinity, VERY FEW POTENTIAL OUTCOMES, EVEN AMONGST THOSE OF TRACE POSSIBILITY, WILL RESULT IN A WET STREET.

Once the conditional variables of a matter are accounted for to at least an operable degree, probabilities can then be determined and intuited even if only in preliminary manners.        For example, a very probable and immediate cause of a wet street could, in fact, be that it is raining outside.    How might we test to determine whether or not it's raining outside?      We could look; that would be easy.  What is it on the street that's making it wet?     If it is or isn't water, we've further isolated both probable and potential causes one way or another.    If it's water...is it raining on the street?    If yes, wet street probably explained.       If it is raining, has the rainfall been sufficient to saturate the street surface as much as it has, or are there other, potentially additional causes synergizing in this effect behind the obvious contributing environmental factor?

On the other hand, if the street is wet and it is not raining, you might have to look elsewhere for explanations.    Could they be quite numerous?    Potentially so.    Infinite?

No.   Under no uncertain terms, no.     Your statement is made invalid by its exaggeration. 

Moreover, you clearly don't understand that inductive reasoning is a participle of empirical data acquisition, not the only.    You're also completely ignoring the role of falsifiability.  Given your quotation of Karl Popper, you ought to know a little something about his role in the popularization of the term as with the establishment of its concepts.     Yet, you didn't mention it in your cherry-picked attempt at faux-empiricism.

What ARE you trying to achieve here, I am left to wonder?     Are you so poor at reasoning that sloppy thinking is the best you can manage, which you then defend with the aegis of the insecure with some of the most feeble and outlandish attempts at justification you could possibly scrape off the walls?

Quit finding crap on Google and trying to represent it if you don't understand the material beyond whatever buzzwords your skimming bring to your attention.    You seem to possibly have a functioning brain to organize such information as you do; please, go the rest of the way in using it by actually informing yourself upon the topics you wish to address.

Seriously, I'm not urging you to change your mind and agree with me on whatever my own views are, but what you're doing here and in other threads is just shameful; it's lazy, selective, special-pleading foolery, and I'd presume you would like to not, in fact, be a laughing stock.

If you would, well...carry on as you have been.   
« Last Edit: March 05, 2012, 12:26:36 AM by Jake »
"I don't respect your religious beliefs and I don't care if this offends you." - Pat Condel and myself along with him.   I do respect intelligence, rationality and logical consideration, however.    Humor's always good too.

Offline Olivianus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
  • Darwins +2/-42
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Science's Biggest Problem: The Fallacy of Induction
« Reply #32 on: March 05, 2012, 12:51:31 AM »
jaimehlers,

Quote
Stating that you rely on special pleading, as you did in another topic, contradicts this, because special pleading is a logical fallacy.

No its not. It is a rule that people use to debate with. If it was a fallacy then Geometry is a fallacy. Before Euclid constructed his geometric theorems he made a fundamental assumption that cannot be verified by experience: he assumed that only one line passed between two pints.  This is the nonjudgmental postulate of geometry. My fundamental postulate is that the Protestant Canon contains the revealed truth. I can't prove that to you. I assume that, I believe it. From that postulate I deduce my knowledge.

Quote
Admitting to relying on a fallacy to support your view of knowledge indicates that it is less strict than a scientific viewpoint, which relies on no such thing.

LOL! Science relies on so many special pleads its ridiculous. You assume the postulate in geometry, you assume upon induction, you assume upon many points of uniformity in your instruments, such as the pendulum: i. you assume there is such a thing as a fixed point with no verifiable evidence ii. You assume the weight of the bob is evenly displaced around its center iii.  You assume that the bob is homogeneous, that the weight is symmetrically distributed along all axes, or more technically, that the mass is concentrated at a point iv.You assume that the pendulum swings by a tensionless string v. You assume that the pendulum swings on an axis without friction.

Quote
To put it bluntly, your view of knowledge is so fundamentally blinkered that any and all claims you make are questionable and likely wrong due to lack of proof and inability to prove them.  I've demonstrated this in other topics and see no point in revisiting it here.

ROFL! Keep typing please. It gets more entertaining with every word.

Offline Olivianus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
  • Darwins +2/-42
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Science's Biggest Problem: The Fallacy of Induction
« Reply #33 on: March 05, 2012, 12:54:33 AM »
Jake,

I yawn at your foaming-at-the-mouth-rants. Face the music man.

Offline sun_king

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 388
  • Darwins +25/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • We see things not as they are, but as we are
Re: Science's Biggest Problem: The Fallacy of Induction
« Reply #34 on: March 05, 2012, 01:07:52 AM »

LOL! Science relies on so many special pleads its ridiculous. You assume the postulate in geometry, you assume upon induction, you assume upon many points of uniformity in your instruments, such as the pendulum: i. you assume there is such a thing as a fixed point with no verifiable evidence ii. You assume the weight of the bob is evenly displaced around its center iii.  You assume that the bob is homogeneous, that the weight is symmetrically distributed along all axes, or more technically, that the mass is concentrated at a point iv.You assume that the pendulum swings by a tensionless string v. You assume that the pendulum swings on an axis without friction.

We assume...

You are sure that there is a king in the sky because some dude by name Daniel got some of his predictions vaguely accurate after making special assumptions on what he "really meant"

With such divine knowledge you would be able to prove the Pythagorean theorem wrong. I wasted my time learning geometry!!!

Offline Jake

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 210
  • Darwins +9/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • I see what you do there.
    • Pat Condel's Godless Comedy
Re: Science's Biggest Problem: The Fallacy of Induction
« Reply #35 on: March 05, 2012, 01:31:40 AM »
Jake,

I yawn at your foaming-at-the-mouth-rants. Face the music man.


Go back to college, fella.    You can't even seem to figure out the format of your own attempt at argumentation, you copy/paste endless reams of easily findable content off Google and you're trying to be taken seriously on a platform of erudition while simultaneously declaring that your selective interpretation of knowledge is pretty conveniently isolated to ...what, exactly?     I'm still not sure what you're trying to do here other than look like a second year philosophy student that's read the 300 level texts and got overweeningly emboldened by browbeating underclassmen with terms you don't actually understand in their own relative contexts.

Face the music of what, exactly?    That you're a conceited blowhard that actually seems to believe that this asinine tripe you keep posting is intelligent because you're talking about early principles of scientific philosophy and logic?

Got any further gems to share with us about why Atomism is a disproven theorem (breaking news: duh) or further infatuative fixations on Zeno's paradox (Hint: modern calculus takes so much mystery out of this relative to physics) or would you like to lampshade over into Thomson's lamp for a while and delve a bit into exactly where things like Grandi's series applies in your metaphysical view?

Perhaps, in so doing, you will come to realize that ontological positions do not quantize so neatly into soundbites and you come off looking like a laughingstock for that alone.   

And what exactly does any of this have to do with your precise belief in Biblegod then?      How is it relevant; what does it, even in your own mind, prove, or disprove, when any man, woman or child in the world, right this instant, could wave their arms about and call out to any god or gods they like, for any or no reason at all, and expect the same result?

What.  Are.  You.  Trying.  To.   Accomplish.   Here?

Simple question.   Keep dodging it and I'll keep asking it on every thread you post like it's my new hobby.   
« Last Edit: March 05, 2012, 01:33:13 AM by Jake »
"I don't respect your religious beliefs and I don't care if this offends you." - Pat Condel and myself along with him.   I do respect intelligence, rationality and logical consideration, however.    Humor's always good too.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4758
  • Darwins +543/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Science's Biggest Problem: The Fallacy of Induction
« Reply #36 on: March 05, 2012, 01:35:19 AM »
jaimehlers,

Quote
Stating that you rely on special pleading, as you did in another topic, contradicts this, because special pleading is a logical fallacy.

No its not. It is a rule that people use to debate with. If it was a fallacy then Geometry is a fallacy. Before Euclid constructed his geometric theorems he made a fundamental assumption that cannot be verified by experience: he assumed that only one line passed between two pints.  This is the nonjudgmental postulate of geometry. My fundamental postulate is that the Protestant Canon contains the revealed truth. I can't prove that to you. I assume that, I believe it. From that postulate I deduce my knowledge.
This is blatantly incorrect, and demonstrates that you do not actually understand the basis of science.  Science, as it is understood today, is not based on unproven assumptions.  It is based on formulas that can be mathematically proven true (known as scientific laws).  Your comparison between geometry and your belief in scriptural canon is completely illogical; the premises of geometry are based on math and therefore can be proven true or false, even if no proof had been constructed at the time the premises were made.  Your belief in scriptural canon, on the other hand, is based on nothing which can be proven true or false, but on your opinion.

Special pleading is a fallacy because it depends on applying a different standard to something you believe in as opposed to other things with no basis for the distinction, or applying a standard to something other than what you believe because that standard applies to what you believe while ignoring evident differences between the two.  You are doing the latter in trying to equate geometry with your belief in scriptural canon.

Quote from: Olivianus
Quote
Admitting to relying on a fallacy to support your view of knowledge indicates that it is less strict than a scientific viewpoint, which relies on no such thing.

LOL! Science relies on so many special pleads its ridiculous. You assume the postulate in geometry, you assume upon induction, you assume upon many points of uniformity in your instruments, such as the pendulum: i. you assume there is such a thing as a fixed point with no verifiable evidence ii. You assume the weight of the bob is evenly displaced around its center iii.  You assume that the bob is homogeneous, that the weight is symmetrically distributed along all axes, or more technically, that the mass is concentrated at a point iv.You assume that the pendulum swings by a tensionless string v. You assume that the pendulum swings on an axis without friction.
It relies on no special pleading whatsoever.  Science is invariably based on formulas which can be proven mathematically, even if they are initially assumed.  What this means is that those formulas are falsifiable; they can potentially be proven wrong.  Induction which can be falsified is not a fallacy for the same reason.  And mathematical assumptions (such as in your pendulum example) are made to simplify calculations and come up with a general formula which can then be applied to all known situations.  For example, once you have come up with the formula for how a pendulum swings which does not account for friction, you can then apply a coefficient to represent friction in a specific case and accurately calculate how a pendulum affected by friction would swing.

Quote from: Olivianus
Quote
To put it bluntly, your view of knowledge is so fundamentally blinkered that any and all claims you make are questionable and likely wrong due to lack of proof and inability to prove them.  I've demonstrated this in other topics and see no point in revisiting it here.

ROFL! Keep typing please. It gets more entertaining with every word.
I think I adequately showed that your claim re: special pleading in regards to science is not correct.  This is what I meant by your view of knowledge being fundamentally blinkered.  For example, you claimed that science was dependent on special pleading (even though it can be proven to not be), therefore your own variety of special pleading was valid and not a logical fallacy.  However, you neglected to consider that even if you were successful in proving that science depended on special pleading, it would not make your belief in scriptural canon reliable in any way, shape, or form.  If one thing is a fallacy, and you prove something else to be a fallacy, it does not make the first thing any less of a fallacy.

Offline Olivianus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
  • Darwins +2/-42
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Science's Biggest Problem: The Fallacy of Induction
« Reply #37 on: March 05, 2012, 01:53:59 AM »
Jake

1 question for you: What are your objects of knowledge?

Offline Olivianus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
  • Darwins +2/-42
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Science's Biggest Problem: The Fallacy of Induction
« Reply #38 on: March 05, 2012, 01:57:26 AM »
jaimehlers

All you did is re-assert your opinion. You did not demonstrate how you know only one line passes through distinct points, or the other many demonstrations required of you. You don't get it. You don't have a theory. You never have and you never will. Done mudslinging with children. Not following this thread anymore.

Offline Jake

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 210
  • Darwins +9/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • I see what you do there.
    • Pat Condel's Godless Comedy
Re: Science's Biggest Problem: The Fallacy of Induction
« Reply #39 on: March 05, 2012, 02:57:45 AM »
Jake

1 question for you: What are your objects of knowledge?

Interpretivistic, for the most consistent part, describes the sum of what I regard as objects of knowledge.   But then, I'm a social psychologist with a background in cognitive science and business and a smattering of cognitive research administration.     Not epistemology or, frankly, philosophy.         

So, what are you trying to do here?
"I don't respect your religious beliefs and I don't care if this offends you." - Pat Condel and myself along with him.   I do respect intelligence, rationality and logical consideration, however.    Humor's always good too.

Offline kin hell

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5378
  • Darwins +152/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • - .... . .-. . /.. ... / -. --- / --. --- -.. ...
Re: Science's Biggest Problem: The Fallacy of Induction
« Reply #40 on: March 05, 2012, 03:04:12 AM »
^ Jake 

the sad clown has left the thread promising never to return  (one lives in hope)

"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester."  Bill Bailey

all edits are for spelling or grammar unless specified otherwise

Offline Jake

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 210
  • Darwins +9/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • I see what you do there.
    • Pat Condel's Godless Comedy
Re: Science's Biggest Problem: The Fallacy of Induction
« Reply #41 on: March 05, 2012, 03:07:12 AM »
Seems to do that a lot, doesn't he?       I notice he also waxes very quick to inform people of how much they make him yawn when, as far as I can tell, he can't find an argument on Google to hide behind.
"I don't respect your religious beliefs and I don't care if this offends you." - Pat Condel and myself along with him.   I do respect intelligence, rationality and logical consideration, however.    Humor's always good too.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4758
  • Darwins +543/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Science's Biggest Problem: The Fallacy of Induction
« Reply #42 on: March 05, 2012, 08:02:25 AM »
jaimehlers

All you did is re-assert your opinion. You did not demonstrate how you know only one line passes through distinct points, or the other many demonstrations required of you. You don't get it. You don't have a theory. You never have and you never will. Done mudslinging with children. Not following this thread anymore.
*snort*  I don't have a theory?  What, because you say so?

The only person here who doesn't get it is you.  Your assertions about the fallacy of induction, about how the knowledge of science was based on the indivisibility of the atom, about how your scriptural canon is valid solely because you believe it to be so, even about how an object has to be in uniform motion to have the laws of physics apply to it - all of those are nothing more than assertions based on flawed and irrational logic.  You obviously came to this thread assuming that your philosophical arguments could trump reality and the methodology we use to discover things about reality, science.

It's true that science may never be able to give us a perfect and complete picture of how reality works, but it far, far outweighs any philosophical theory which depends on ideas which do not and often can not exist in reality as the source for knowledge.  And as long as you continue to argue that they do, you will find your stay here to be frustrating.

Offline HAL

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5012
  • Darwins +98/-17
  • Gender: Male
Re: Science's Biggest Problem: The Fallacy of Induction
« Reply #43 on: March 05, 2012, 08:26:42 AM »
Hal, not true. I just have a different and much more strict view of knowledge than you do.

Well ... I - we - are waiting for it

How much longer are you going to keep us. Or are you teasing us by holding us in suspense for a few more days until you get it all typed up. Spill it for us.

Oh I know what your theory will be - it's sorta like what that kid said to Neo in the movie The Matrix

"It is not the street that gets wet - it is only your mind"

[1]
 1. You sure sound a whole lot like member Dawiyhd, but I can't prove you are him (yet)

Offline inveni0

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
  • Darwins +11/-1
    • iMAGINARY god
Re: Science's Biggest Problem: The Fallacy of Induction
« Reply #44 on: March 05, 2012, 10:43:11 AM »
In common speech the problem goes something like this:  When it is raining outside the streets will be wet; The streets are wet, therefore it is raining outside.  This is a fallacy.  The streets could be wet for an infinite number of reasons.

You're oversimplifying the scientific process, and using an example purposely designed to exploit this over simplification.  But it's still a great example anyway.  Let me explain:

If the streets are wet, it is (or was) raining outside.

We make this assumption on a fairly regular basis.  When I go outside and see the ground it wet, I say, "Wow, was it raining?" or, "Did it rain last night?"  It's a perfectly reasonable assumption because the streets are wet.  Dirt is muddy.  There may even be a rainbow in the sky.  In other words, I take in more information than just some droplets on my stoop.  In fact, just the other day, my wife asked, "Is it raining?" as we walked to our car from Jimmy John's.  I said, "I don't feel anything."  But when we got to the car, I could see little specks of water on the windshield.  It WAS raining.  But it took more than a feeling to convince me.

Could that water have another source?  Sure!  Someone could dump a bunch of water from an airplane 30,000 miles up.  Or a firetruck could come by and spray 30 blocks worth of suburban streets.  But are those logical assumptions?  No, they're not.  Can they be excluded?  Not with absolute certainty.  I can check to see if any airplanes flew overhead, but that doesn't mean the water didn't come from a secret government "rain plane".  Or I can call the fire department and ask if they hosed down the neighborhood, but he could be a crazed liar and deny it.

99% of the time, when the entire neighborhood is covered in water drops, it's because it rained.  And that's how science works.  There may be additional explanations or circumstance, but we go with the most likely of them all--the one that is proven to work repeatedly.

Unfortunately, god doesn't fall into the category of repeatedly testable.
http://www.imaginarygod.com

My book designed to ease kids into healthy skepticism is available for pre-order. http://www.peterskeeter.com

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Science's Biggest Problem: The Fallacy of Induction
« Reply #45 on: March 05, 2012, 11:05:50 AM »
damn, Oliv, but you are quite an hypocrite.  one more Christian, so desperate to cling to their god that they must dis the very science that they use and *trust* every day and you are amazing ignorant about that science.   it's truly a pity that people like you can't be left on an island so they don't have to use science to exist comfortably and rely on their delusions of the world being some Seussian nightmare. 

ladies and gentlemen, on the right we are coming up on solipsism, often the last refuge of the common Christian.

 

"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline HAL

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5012
  • Darwins +98/-17
  • Gender: Male
Re: Science's Biggest Problem: The Fallacy of Induction
« Reply #46 on: March 05, 2012, 11:28:08 AM »
ladies and gentlemen, on the right we are coming up on solipsism, often the last refuge of the common Christian.

Why is he arguing with non-existent people?  :)

Offline Jake

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 210
  • Darwins +9/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • I see what you do there.
    • Pat Condel's Godless Comedy
Re: Science's Biggest Problem: The Fallacy of Induction
« Reply #47 on: March 05, 2012, 11:41:43 AM »
Argument from fallacy at its finest, or at least, attempt at such.

"Early science was wrong, ergo all that which it led to is false"

That about summarize your position, Olivander, you Hogwarts professor of mnemonic thaumaturgy you?      Having read and re-read every single one of your posts on this forum, I'll just go ahead and answer that for you; yes, it does.   

It's a nice stunt to pull on a lecture hall though, isn't it?    Got all these undergrads and attendees at a symposium that showed up just to hear what you've got to say, and gosh golly, they usually just sit there and listen, and it's so easy to browbeat unwanted inquirers and then talk around them, innit?

You came to this forum with your ego in full flare; you've repeatedly chittered with all the maturity of a taunting toddler how eager you are to eject 'our way of life' from 'your city'; you repeatedly do little but copy/paste christian apologist ranting in your threads and then go on to stupefy educated observers by how extemporaneous your ad hoc understanding of the very principles you're flailing with is; you attempt to limit the scope of acceptable information to only that which was posited by professional scientists in an inexplicably limited timeframe...and ya know what?

You STILL haven't managed to even once state what you're trying to do!      Your posting history, however, makes it rather plain that you're not here to discuss or even debate anything; you're not even attempting to persuasively represent your own position (and if you are, you're so unbelievably terrible at it that your persuasive method is 'Smug Condescension'; that work where you're from?) insofar as I can determine.

So, you ready to talk TO people yet, or shall we continue kicking your position around like a beachball and really not giving a damn if you're even attempting at a point which, by all apparency, you only just maybe possibly might be?

Your call, Olivander.    Fellow forumer or highly ignorable wanna-be Hogwarts professor?     

Choose.
"I don't respect your religious beliefs and I don't care if this offends you." - Pat Condel and myself along with him.   I do respect intelligence, rationality and logical consideration, however.    Humor's always good too.

Offline HAL

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5012
  • Darwins +98/-17
  • Gender: Male
Re: Science's Biggest Problem: The Fallacy of Induction
« Reply #48 on: March 06, 2012, 08:58:52 AM »
Bump

So Olivianus, are you reading this thread? We're waiting for you to explain to the forum what your "strict view" of knowledge is.

Or were you really just all wet to begin with.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4758
  • Darwins +543/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Science's Biggest Problem: The Fallacy of Induction
« Reply #49 on: March 06, 2012, 10:21:02 AM »
I wonder if he decided to no longer follow the whole forum and just didn't tell us?

Online Aaron123

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2733
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Science's Biggest Problem: The Fallacy of Induction
« Reply #50 on: March 06, 2012, 11:13:15 AM »
^

He already said in reply 38 that he's not responding to this thread anymore.

So yeah... all wet.
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Science's Biggest Problem: The Fallacy of Induction
« Reply #51 on: March 06, 2012, 11:29:57 AM »
One wonders how he makes it through a normal day. He can't determine if the streets are wet, or if he heard his alarm clock, or if it's daytime or nighttime, or even what he is looking at from moment to moment. Tough way to get through life I would imagine.

Hal, not true. I just have a different and much more strict view of knowledge than you do.

And apparently "special pleading" is the basis of it.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12130
  • Darwins +646/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Science's Biggest Problem: The Fallacy of Induction
« Reply #52 on: March 06, 2012, 12:14:50 PM »
Or were you really just all wet to begin with.

He has no way of knowing, unless someone reveals it to him.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4758
  • Darwins +543/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Science's Biggest Problem: The Fallacy of Induction
« Reply #53 on: March 06, 2012, 12:47:53 PM »
Or were you really just all wet to begin with.

He has no way of knowing, unless someone reveals it to him.
Someone outside reality so that they can be unchanging.  *eyeroll*

Offline HAL

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5012
  • Darwins +98/-17
  • Gender: Male
Re: Science's Biggest Problem: The Fallacy of Induction
« Reply #54 on: March 06, 2012, 12:52:30 PM »
Username:
    Olivianus
Posts:
    89 (17.800 per day)
...
Last Active:
    Yesterday at 01:59:57 AM


Seems he's logged on since I asked for more info. Maybe after thinking about it, he determined that he couldn't verify that the forum existed.


Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12130
  • Darwins +646/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Science's Biggest Problem: The Fallacy of Induction
« Reply #55 on: March 06, 2012, 03:43:32 PM »
Someone outside reality so that they can be unchanging.  *eyeroll*

I didn't want to put too fine a point on it.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.