before you post here, READ THIS FIRST

politics, religion, science, art, barack obama, belgium, etc.
User avatar
joe
The Big Cheese
Posts: 32538
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2002 2:40 am
Location: northern california
Contact:

before you post here, READ THIS FIRST

Post by joe » Thu Jul 11, 2002 2:55 pm

some people posting here are having a hard time being rational in their arguments. in order to make any progress, we'll need to agree on some principles of thought. i'm a high school dropout, so pardon me if i make some mistakes along the way.

The Scientific Process
what i call the scientific process requires at least two people, or parties, preferably more.
party 1, call them the researchers, performs a study. the study includes gathering of data, analysis of the data, and conclusions. then they publish the study to make it available to peer review.

the second party, or parties, let's call them the reviewers. they read the study, carefully noting any bad methods of data gathering, possible errors in analysis, or flawed conclusions. they often perform the exact same experiment to see if they can reproduce the same results. if they can, and they agree with the analysis and conclusions, the study is a success - it is considered to be "the truth." On the other hand, if there is a problem with the study in any way, they explain what the problem is and the person who did the study has to go back and do a new study to fix those problems. This scientific process has been going on for hundreds of years, and everything science knows about is a result of this process.

Of course, there are a lot of scientists, and scientists are human. So while 1000 people might agree that a study is correct there will *always* be a few people on the fringe who disagree. Famously, there have been a few people on the fringe who were right. But other than a few historic geniuses who were always later recognized, every single other minority opinion has been incorrect, if not proven incorrect then at least regarded as incorrect. Often the fringe or minority opinion is doing "bad science" which is why they disagree in the first place.

Logic:
one process of forming a logical argument has three steps:

major premise (general observation)
minor premise (particular observation)
conclusion

It's also important to point out that something can be LOGICAL without being TRUE. for example:

all cars are red.
i have a car.
therefore, my car is red.

this is 100% LOGICAL. it just happens to be UNTRUE. this, by the way, is called DEDUCTION, or deductive reasoning.

so it's important that both parties agree on the TRUTHFULNESS of both premises, and on the LOGIC of the conclusion.

another way of stating a logical argument is INDUCTIVELY, when you move from the specific to the general. for example:

i know i have a car
i have proof the car isn't blue, yellow, green, orange, black, white or purple
everything else i own is red
i have said that i like red cars
therefore, my car must be red

inductive reasoning is considered more difficult than deductive reasoning because it's easier to make a mistake in completeness or correctness of negative observations.

a very strong argument will include:

a specific declaration of the writer's position on the problem at hand;

an acknowledgment of the opposing point of view;

a set of clearly defined premises that illustrate the argument's line of reasoning;

evidence that validates the argument's premises;

a conclusion that is convincing, sound and persuasive.

the most common errors in premise are:
- suppression of facts
- manipulation of facts
- lack of evidence
- outdated evidence
- irrelevant evidence

the most common errors in conclusions (logical fallacies) are:
- generalization based on biased or insufficient evidence
- either/or; assuming only two possibilities exist (e.g. war or peace)
- non sequitor; a conclusion that isn't drawn from evidence (e.g. she is pretty so she must be smart)
- ad hominem; attacking a person rather than an idea (e.g. joe is ugly so he is wrong)
- red herring; an irrelevant distractions (e.g. who cares about war, we are all going to die anyway)
- circular reasoning; stating a fact, then using your statement as evidence (e.g. we are at war, so there must be an enemy!)
- false analogy; if two things are alike in any way, they must be alike in another way (e.g. all redheads are pretty)
- Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc; thinking that because A happened before B, A caused B
- equivocation; manipulating the ambiguities of language (e.g. using a word with two meanings as if it had one)

please try to be as truthful and logical as possible, and avoid these errors in your posts.

for more info, read this site: http://www.philosophy.unimelb.edu.au/re ... /index.htm
[ACA]Training
Posts: 24
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2002 6:55 pm
Location: San Luis Obispo
Contact:

Post by [ACA]Training » Thu Jul 11, 2002 4:07 pm

Joe you make me laugh, i havent laughed this hard since 5 min ago when a guy on penny arcade claimed his post was the equivelent of Einstein and Relativity. But since then, man this takes the cake woot woot joe.

-[ACA]Training

a few things to note though
#1 induction can never prove an argument only support it.
#2 with an improper preis deduction will always be wrong.
#3 if the premis is true (ie if all cars were red) then your car would HAVE to be red.

the scientific method should be used by taking math which is 100% deductive, applying it to generate a premis and then deducing from that. I.E. you should avoid induction at all cost. often times this is not the case we do the best we can and induce.
User avatar
joe
The Big Cheese
Posts: 32538
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2002 2:40 am
Location: northern california
Contact:

Post by joe » Thu Jul 11, 2002 4:49 pm

[ACA]Training wrote:Joe you make me laugh, i havent laughed this hard since 5 min ago when a guy on penny arcade claimed his post was the equivelent of Einstein and Relativity. But since then, man this takes the cake woot woot joe.
already the ad hominem attacks start *sigh*
[ACA]Training wrote: a few things to note though
#1 induction can never prove an argument only support it.
wrong - if premise one is that "any integer plus 1 is a higher number" and i have proof, then i can use induction to prove it's true of any specific integer
[ACA]Training wrote: #2 with an improper preis deduction will always be wrong.
i think that's what i said:
"so it's important that both parties agree on the TRUTHFULNESS of both premises, and on the LOGIC of the conclusion."
[ACA]Training wrote: #3 if the premis is true (ie if all cars were red) then your car would HAVE to be red.
yes, but the premise ISN'T true. did you read my post? that was a specific example of something being LOGICAL but not TRUE.

[ACA]Training wrote: the scientific method should be used by taking math which is 100% deductive, applying it to generate a premis and then deducing from that.
i'm not sure what to say. what is your statement based on? ALL science is conducted using hte scientific method - history, geology, biology, physics, zoology, any -ology, and pretty much any academic or intellectual exercise has to stand up to the rigors of the scientific process. otherwise how can anyone base any further research on something that might be compromised?
[ACA]Training wrote: I.E. you should avoid induction at all cost. often times this is not the case we do the best we can and induce.
yes, none of us are scientists. but if i make a statement like "one element of the republican platform is to discourage labor unions" we can all agree on that without being experts. it's axiomatic - a known truth.
[ACA]Training
Posts: 24
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2002 6:55 pm
Location: San Luis Obispo
Contact:

Post by [ACA]Training » Thu Jul 11, 2002 5:15 pm

joe wrote:
[ACA]Training wrote:Joe you make me laugh, i havent laughed this hard since 5 min ago when a guy on penny arcade claimed his post was the equivelent of Einstein and Relativity. But since then, man this takes the cake woot woot joe.
already the ad hominem attacks start *sigh*
i want attacking you i was actually being honest u make me laugh and it made me happy no character attack also its not a hominem unless character is taking the place of the argument. Also this is still a debated falacy because if some1 has an agenda ie cigarette companies publish findings on cigarettes. they will make thier test in order to show their side so you do have to analyze who the info is comming from because you cant do all the experiments yourself and test their axioms.
joe wrote:
[ACA]Training wrote: a few things to note though
#1 induction can never prove an argument only support it.
wrong - if premise one is that "any integer plus 1 is a higher number" and i have proof, then i can use induction to prove it's true of any specific integer
thats deductive joe. if x +1 = y x= y -1 using rules of addition you derive that x < y this is deduction. The entire premis of math is deduction based of primary rules that were deduced making a perfect system of logic. This is the entire reason for math, because it is induction free.

joe wrote:
[ACA]Training wrote: the scientific method should be used by taking math which is 100% deductive, applying it to generate a premis and then deducing from that.
i'm not sure what to say. what is your statement based on? ALL science is conducted using hte scientific method - history, geology, biology, physics, zoology, any -ology, and pretty much any academic or intellectual exercise has to stand up to the rigors of the scientific process. otherwise how can anyone base any further research on something that might be compromised?
what are you saying?
joe wrote:
[ACA]Training wrote: I.E. you should avoid induction at all cost. often times this is not the case we do the best we can and induce.
yes, none of us are scientists. but if i make a statement like "one element of the republican platform is to discourage labor unions" we can all agree on that without being experts. it's axiomatic - a known truth.
[/quote]

it is an accepted truth but about 40% of the republican party supports unions. so to say hes a republican must be against unions is wrong, this is the problem with induction, ofetn its the best we can do as a race who cant mathmatecally describe things but it isnt perfect.


-[ACA]Training
User avatar
joe
The Big Cheese
Posts: 32538
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2002 2:40 am
Location: northern california
Contact:

Post by joe » Thu Jul 11, 2002 5:39 pm

x +1 = y x= y -1 is induction

and please, provide some evidence of the 40% of republicans that are pro-union. this is the first time i ever heard anything like that and i read a lot about labor issues.
[ACA]Training
Posts: 24
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2002 6:55 pm
Location: San Luis Obispo
Contact:

Post by [ACA]Training » Thu Jul 11, 2002 6:22 pm

no joe it isnt if u apply a rule it is deduction a few years of calc i think i understnad math.

if a<b and b<c then a<c basics of all mathematics explained. if a by rules of addition and subtratcion a x= y-1 and by = x+1 then c x<y


also it doesnt matter if its 40% or 4% its an arbitrary #. the point is that not all republicans are anti-union in fact the republican party supports the teamsters union and vice versa. this is induction adn has error that is the point.
User avatar
joe
The Big Cheese
Posts: 32538
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2002 2:40 am
Location: northern california
Contact:

Post by joe » Thu Jul 11, 2002 7:01 pm

[ACA]Training wrote:no joe it isnt if u apply a rule it is deduction a few years of calc i think i understnad math.

if a<b and b<c then a<c basics of all mathematics explained. if a by rules of addition and subtratcion a x= y-1 and by = x+1 then c x<y
induction = using things known to be TRUE
deduction = using things known to be FALSE
[ACA]Training wrote: also it doesnt matter if its 40% or 4% its an arbitrary #. the point is that not all republicans are anti-union in fact the republican party supports the teamsters union and vice versa. this is induction adn has error that is the point.
actually 40% vs. 4% is a HUGE difference. let's say a labor law is up for voting that requires a 2/3 majority. if the labor unions have 50% (demos) and 20% (40% of 50% repubs) they have 70% and win easily. but if they get 50% and 2% (4% of 50%) they lose by a landslide. so it IS a huge difference with very real consequences.
[ACA]Training
Posts: 24
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2002 6:55 pm
Location: San Luis Obispo
Contact:

Post by [ACA]Training » Thu Jul 11, 2002 7:15 pm

UR DEFINITIONS OF DEDUCTION AND INDUCTION ARE COMPLETELY WORNG INT HAT LAST POST AND SORRY FOR CAPS BUT IM TOO LAZY TO TYPE OVER AGAIN. ALSO LOL JOE LOL LOL LOL ARBITRARY IN MAKIGN THE POINT OF INDUCTIONS FLAWS! UR 2 FUNNY, U DONT EVEN LISTEN U JUST ANALYZE SOMETHING TWISTING IT SO U CAN ARGUE IT WHEN THAT ISNT EVEN THE POINT. I DUB THIS THE JOE FALACY ;)
-[ACA]TRAINING
User avatar
joe
The Big Cheese
Posts: 32538
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2002 2:40 am
Location: northern california
Contact:

Post by joe » Thu Jul 11, 2002 10:15 pm

that's ok training, keep it coming. i may have a heart attack if you ever post any actual evidence though, so please continue to post opinions, innuendo, and insults :) i think it makes me look good to everyone

joe
[ACA]Training
Posts: 24
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2002 6:55 pm
Location: San Luis Obispo
Contact:

Post by [ACA]Training » Wed Jul 17, 2002 4:40 pm

"that's ok training, keep it coming. i may have a heart attack if you ever post any actual evidence though, so please continue to post opinions, innuendo, and insults i think it makes me look good to everyone

joe"


well joe i not insulting you. It is in fact you that is using hominem against me by trying to act liek i am and to discredit my pov.



now joe answer me this. I took AP Econ in highschool when the test was taken we had a month of class left. What did we learn? logic. 1st quarter at cal poly i took a logics class, i got an A. I know and understand logic and if you are mistaken i will tell you. Im not gonna waste my time lookign up some bullshit when i am EDUCATED and know the answer.

-[ACA]Training
MephistoMyHero
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2002 2:03 pm
Contact:

Post by MephistoMyHero » Tue Jul 23, 2002 12:30 pm

Wow. You guys are totally rambling :-P hehe. Anywho, I am a scientist but I you guys make me laugh. Joe lost my attention half way down his first post :-) I then moved down to Training's Post and that was funny still. You guys are hilarious :-)
User avatar
Obi Juan
Posts: 3486
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2002 4:47 pm

Post by Obi Juan » Sat Aug 03, 2002 5:33 pm

dats a lot
User avatar
Wiebs
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2002 11:00 pm
Location: Behind You
Contact:

Post by Wiebs » Mon Aug 19, 2002 10:22 pm

you make my head hurt
Grow a pair, buy a scout.
AWPERS are pussies and n00bs
Whiny 9 year old kids suck too
WiEbS
My Car
http://www.cardomain.com/member_pages/v ... t=25&val=1
User avatar
grincch
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2002 4:16 am
Contact:

Post by grincch » Mon Aug 26, 2002 11:00 am

Well joe looks like yer study worked, and im a high school drop out too :) or :( im getting my GED right now cause to be in the electrical union u need a HSD or a GED ,, man when i read yer speach i thought yer point was try to be nice when people spend there time to post something,, but there will always be the chosen few that talk crap about what u write!?>

And being a high school dropout , i think my problem in school was i never thought shcool was needed ,just learn yer trade and move on, i always said, cause you will always learn things in life.

but sum knuckelhead thought u needed a piece of paper with yer name on it to prove your role in society ,,,OK thats it im not going to start venting i felt myself going back 20 years!
User avatar
theZero0
Posts: 236
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2002 1:35 am
Location: EveryWhere...Outside of this world... Near your girlfriend house...close to a dancing club...CA!! BB
Contact:

Post by theZero0 » Fri Sep 06, 2002 5:36 am

ARG you guys

TOO MAN quotations!!!!! madem e crazy when i get bored ill read al that stuff

or maybe when i get old like 60 ot 70



ZERO hahahaha
Living to become a better living person...

I am 89% addicted to Counterstrike. What about you?
Post Reply