Originally posted by jmoz
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The Political Discussion Thread
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
In propositional logic, in the A --> B situation, A can be true but in no way implies B is true, nor B being true in no way implies A true. And in your designation of A and B, A is true because it yields useful results? You can't prove A without B, you have to use B to even get A. If you can get A without B, then what process were you using to get A in the first place? How does that imply the scientific method to be true unless you're defining the truth of the scientific method be determined by 'useful results'. It doesn't validate the process because the scientific method uses deductive and inductive reasoning, which I've said have no rationalization.
Comment
-
Uh, I took the A --> B logic material in school, and in that statement, you do not need B in order to evaluate the truth of A.Sum, ergo scribo...
(Yes, I'm female. Okay?)
My own site ** FF.net * All That We Leave Behind * Symbiotica ** AO3
sigpic
now also appearing on DeviantArt
Explore Colonel Frank Cromwell's odyssey after falling through the Stargate in Season Two's A Matter of Time, and follow Jack's search for him. Significant Tok'ra supporting characters and a human culture drawn from the annals of history. Book One of the series By Honor Bound.
Comment
-
Doesn't matter what A and B represent; in "If A then B" you don't need B to determine whether A is true.Sum, ergo scribo...
(Yes, I'm female. Okay?)
My own site ** FF.net * All That We Leave Behind * Symbiotica ** AO3
sigpic
now also appearing on DeviantArt
Explore Colonel Frank Cromwell's odyssey after falling through the Stargate in Season Two's A Matter of Time, and follow Jack's search for him. Significant Tok'ra supporting characters and a human culture drawn from the annals of history. Book One of the series By Honor Bound.
Comment
-
sigh, I knoooooooow, was talking about his particular designation of A and B. I know, I took logic. And if you want to press the matter further, using A and B and and the deductive steps of logic, you don't ever determine the truth values of A or B, you presuppose the truth values of A and B.
Comment
-
Yes, but in this context, I don't think "presuppose" means what you seem to think it means, that's all.Sum, ergo scribo...
(Yes, I'm female. Okay?)
My own site ** FF.net * All That We Leave Behind * Symbiotica ** AO3
sigpic
now also appearing on DeviantArt
Explore Colonel Frank Cromwell's odyssey after falling through the Stargate in Season Two's A Matter of Time, and follow Jack's search for him. Significant Tok'ra supporting characters and a human culture drawn from the annals of history. Book One of the series By Honor Bound.
Comment
-
No, actually I'm not. In the case of a logical argument, an assumption does not mean blindly taking something on faith.
Let's say you have an apple sitting in front of you. The apple is red; you can see this with your own eyes. You want to make a logical statement that starts from the premise that the apple is, in fact, red. Does that really mean that you're taking it on faith that the apple is red, just because you can call it an assumption or presupposition?Sum, ergo scribo...
(Yes, I'm female. Okay?)
My own site ** FF.net * All That We Leave Behind * Symbiotica ** AO3
sigpic
now also appearing on DeviantArt
Explore Colonel Frank Cromwell's odyssey after falling through the Stargate in Season Two's A Matter of Time, and follow Jack's search for him. Significant Tok'ra supporting characters and a human culture drawn from the annals of history. Book One of the series By Honor Bound.
Comment
-
Originally posted by jmoz View PostIn propositional logic, in the A --> B situation, A can be true but in no way implies B is true, nor B being true in no way implies A true. And in your designation of A and B, A is true because it yields useful results? You can't prove A without B, you have to use B to even get A. If you can get A without B, then what process were you using to get A in the first place? How does that imply the scientific method to be true unless you're defining the truth of the scientific method be determined by 'useful results'. It doesn't validate the process because the scientific method uses deductive and inductive reasoning, which I've said have no rationalization.
Science doesn't say that if the theory of gravity is true then there is gravity. It says that since we have made consistent observations of the phenomenon of gravity then we can formulate a theory about gravity through extensive testing which can then explain the phenomenon and make predictions about it in the future.
Comment
-
Originally posted by SF_and_Coffee View PostNo, actually I'm not. In the case of a logical argument, an assumption does not mean blindly taking something on faith.
Let's say you have an apple sitting in front of you. The apple is red; you can see this with your own eyes. You want to make a logical statement that starts from the premise that the apple is, in fact, red. Does that really mean that you're taking it on faith that the apple is red, just because you can call it an assumption or presupposition?
"Newton observed that color is not inherent in objects. Rather, the surface of an object reflects some colors and absorbs all the others. We perceive only the reflected colors.
Thus, red is not "in" an apple. The surface of the apple is reflecting the wavelengths we see as red and absorbing all the rest. An object appears white when it reflects all wavelengths and black when it absorbs them all.
About 8% of men and 1% of women have some form of color impairment. Most people with color deficiencies aren't aware that the colors they perceive as identical appear different to other people. Most still perceive color, but certain colors are transmitted to the brain differently."
Therefore, faith is not required, only science.If you wish to see more of my rants, diatribes, and general comments, check out my Twitter account SirRyanR!
Check out Pharaoh Hamenthotep's wicked 3D renders here!
If you can prove me wrong, go for it. I enjoy being proven wrong.
sigpic
Worship the Zefron. Always the Zefron.
Comment
-
Originally posted by lordofseas View PostA colorblind person would not see the apple as red. Does that mean you're wrong? No.
"Newton observed that color is not inherent in objects. Rather, the surface of an object reflects some colors and absorbs all the others. We perceive only the reflected colors.
Thus, red is not "in" an apple. The surface of the apple is reflecting the wavelengths we see as red and absorbing all the rest. An object appears white when it reflects all wavelengths and black when it absorbs them all.
About 8% of men and 1% of women have some form of color impairment. Most people with color deficiencies aren't aware that the colors they perceive as identical appear different to other people. Most still perceive color, but certain colors are transmitted to the brain differently."
Therefore, faith is not required, only science.sigpic
Poppy Appeal
Comment
-
Originally posted by lordofseas View PostA colorblind person would not see the apple as red. Does that mean you're wrong? No.
"Newton observed that color is not inherent in objects. Rather, the surface of an object reflects some colors and absorbs all the others. We perceive only the reflected colors.
Thus, red is not "in" an apple. The surface of the apple is reflecting the wavelengths we see as red and absorbing all the rest. An object appears white when it reflects all wavelengths and black when it absorbs them all.
About 8% of men and 1% of women have some form of color impairment. Most people with color deficiencies aren't aware that the colors they perceive as identical appear different to other people. Most still perceive color, but certain colors are transmitted to the brain differently."
Therefore, faith is not required, only science.Sum, ergo scribo...
(Yes, I'm female. Okay?)
My own site ** FF.net * All That We Leave Behind * Symbiotica ** AO3
sigpic
now also appearing on DeviantArt
Explore Colonel Frank Cromwell's odyssey after falling through the Stargate in Season Two's A Matter of Time, and follow Jack's search for him. Significant Tok'ra supporting characters and a human culture drawn from the annals of history. Book One of the series By Honor Bound.
Comment
-
Since we're going off-track. I will post a new topic for discussion:
What do you think the repercussions of the 2011 Libyan "no fly zone" conflict will be?
I realize there was a similar thread that discussed this which was closed...
I want to make one thing clear first: any post that violates the thread rules WILL be reported.sigpic
Don't touch Lola
Comment
-
Originally posted by Rickington View PostSince we're going off-track. I will post a new topic for discussion:
What do you think the repercussions of the 2011 Libyan "no fly zone" conflict will be?
--oh wait...Click the banner or episode links to visit the virtual continuations of Stargate!Previous Episode: 11x03 "Shore Leave" | Previous Episode: 6x04 "Nightfall" | Now Airing: 3x06 "Eldest"The Continuing Stargate Wiki | Stargate: Avalon l The New "Ark of Truth" | Stargate: Universe Reviews | Banner designs by Alx
Comment
Comment