User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 56

Thread: LOL

  1. #21
    Member ferunandesu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INxP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beyonder View Post
    ... Please rephrase that. Thanks.
    Okay.

    Philosopher One: Here is the case for A, hereafter known as X. <Insert X here>

    Philosopher Two: ~A! <Insert case for B, which does not refute the case for A>

    Philosopher One: No, A. <Insert X here>

    Philosopher Two: ~A! <Insert case for C, which does not refute the case for A>

    Philosopher One: No... A. <Insert X here>

    Philosopher Two: ~A! <Insert more jibberjabber>

    Philosopher One: STFU.

  2. #22
    Member ferunandesu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INxP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beyonder View Post
    And YOU said that scientific theories could be judged on the merits of logic, wich sad to say, no it can't
    So if Theory Y comes to conclusion X as well as ~X, then it can be valid, as well as sound?

    NO. It can't. Science is subject to logic.

  3. #23

  4. #24
    Member ferunandesu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INxP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    96

    Default

    “Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned.”

    - Avicenna


    So... I hope that you're not trying to refute me with the very law that I'm referring to. Please just agree, I don't want to hurt anyone. I'm also confused and I have a headache.

    Quantum theory is quite dissonant, but it doesn't break the law of noncontradiction.

    Next, we'll be talking about relativism, right?

  5. #25
    Member Beyonder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    intp
    Posts
    66

    Default

    No, I was referring to the law of non-contradiction not being logical, here. Just because it can be expressed in a symbolic form doesn't make it logical per definition. Besides, I'm always, always talking about symbolic logic when I mention the word 'logic'. I for one have never seen any scientific paper actually employing symbolic logic. Maths doesn't count. And, check the second link. The law of non-contradiction isn't particularly valid anymore when talking about quantummechanics.

    Quote Originally Posted by ferunandesu
    Please just agree, I don't want to hurt anyone. I'm also confused and I have a headache.
    Agree? Me? Nope. I'm just getting started. And no, argumentum ad misericoriam fallacies don't work on me.

    Next, we'll be talking about relativism, right?
    No, relativism sucks. I'm a hardcore sceptic though, but I don't use those kinds of arguments in regular argumentation since that would be a party-crasher (A Crappy Dialogue/Question about Falliblism & Skepticism: Philosophy Forums I'm ying, over there. That's my actual name).
    Last edited by Beyonder; 05-20-2007 at 12:41 AM.
    "I determined nothing."
    -Sceptical expression

  6. #26
    Member ferunandesu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INxP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    96

    Default

    The law of non-contradiction is logical, since logic would not exist without it.

    And the law of non-contradiction is still valid in light of valid claims from quantum physicists. You just have to learn more about it. I'm not a physicist, but I do know that when quantum physicists make the claim that a particle can say, exist in more place than one at once, or that one can simultaneously be in one place and also not be in that place, that they're simply teasing people with these apparent counter intuitions and paradoxes. They usually don't go further along and explain that their real claim has to do with probability.

    I don't know how to explain it properly, so here:

    Nuclear Fusion and the Proton - INTP Central

    "The proton is not just a particle with a position and a momentum, flying around in space. The proton is an entity unlike anything we observe in the macroscopic world. It is a quantum entity, and it exists as a superposition of many states, all assigned a certain probability."

  7. #27
    Member Beyonder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    intp
    Posts
    66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ferunandesu View Post
    The law of non-contradiction is logical, since logic would not exist without it.

    And the law of non-contradiction is still valid in light of valid claims from quantum physicists. You just have to learn more about it. I'm not a physicist, but I do know when quantum physicists make the claim a particle can say, exist in more place than one at once, or that one can simultaneously be in one place and also not be in that place, that they're simply teasing people with these apparent counter intuitions and paradoxes. They usually don't go further along and explain that their real claim has to do with probability.

    I don't know how to explain it properly, so here:

    Nuclear Fusion and the Proton - INTP Central

    "The proton is not just a particle with a position and a momentum, flying around in space. The proton is an entity unlike anything we observe in the macroscopic world. It is a quantum entity, and it exists as a superposition of many states, all assigned a certain probability."
    The proton, just like an atom or nucleus has never been actually observed; it's a theoretical particle with all the evidence pointing in the direction of it's existance. Particle accelerators measure what happens when two sub-molecular particles collide, they don't record observations. And on superpositioning, well, since it does imply multiple contradictory variables, the law of non-contradiction is broken on the account of particles being theoretical and having simultanious contradictory properties at once.

    It's a red herring anyway. The law of non-contradiction isn't logical per definition, and that's what we where talking about.
    "I determined nothing."
    -Sceptical expression

  8. #28
    Member ferunandesu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INxP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beyonder View Post
    And on superpositioning, well, since it does have multiple contradictory variables
    Quantum probabilities cannot contradict since they aren't making discrete claims. And, as Hustler said, protons exist as a superposition of many states. There really is no 'point', if you will. In fact, a 'single' proton can theoretically exist at any point in the universe (I'm guessing), the probability of it's position just lowers nearly exponentially (again, I'm guessing) as you move farther and farther away from what we perceive, or guess, to be a point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beyonder View Post
    The law of non-contradiction isn't logical per definition
    Um, no. Logic as we know it would not exist without it. Sure, there's no way to know if the law is 100&#37; true, but it's a damn strong claim seeing as how no one has ever observed something different.

  9. #29
    Member Beyonder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    intp
    Posts
    66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ferunandesu View Post


    Um, no. Logic as we know it would not exist without it.
    That would make it a logical a priori, thus falling outside of the realm of logic itself. Thanks for conceding on that point. Anyway, since the law of non-contradiction isn't logical itself, and you where claiming that logic would have to be an intrinsic part in judgeing if a theory is scientifically valid or not on the account of that, and you conceded to this point, then would it be fair to say that logic isn't important in judgeing if a theory is scientific or not?
    BTW, the argument about the scientific method just is a non-issue (just email some scientist if you're still interrested; I can't help it if you trust wikipedia over Karl Popper himself). I already explained that logic is used in the finding of theories, not in judgeing if they are scientifically valid. That's testability. This argument is over, because I'm not going to be convinced of anything you bring to the table, and apparently, neither are you. So we are both wasting time. And I'm only quitting on this account because I'm getting really bored, here.
    Sure, there's no way to know if the law is 100&#37; true, but it's a damn strong claim seeing as how no one has ever observed something different.
    That's an argumentum ad ignorantiam.


    Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance." The fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it hasn't been proved true.
    Atheism: Logic & Fallacies
    And I'm not calling you ignorant here (always have to be careful when calling this fallacy out, lol).

    And because the law of non-contradiction isn't testable, adhereing to it would be dogmatical (OK, now I AM being sceptical). And because it's a non-evident claim wich can't be proven either way, I'd rather postpone judgement about it's existence, instead of making a judgement either way. Doesn't take away that it's a nice heuristical device.
    "I determined nothing."
    -Sceptical expression

  10. #30
    Member ferunandesu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INxP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beyonder View Post
    That would make it a logical a priori, thus falling outside of the realm of logic itself. Thanks for conceding on that point.
    If it falls outside of the realm of logic, then why are you calling it invalid?

    Quote Originally Posted by Beyonder View Post
    since the law of non-contradiction isn't logical itself
    No, it's not testable. Perhaps you should read up on metalogic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beyonder View Post
    then would it be fair to say that logic isn't important in judgeing if a theory is scientific or not?
    No.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beyonder View Post
    I already explained that logic is used in the finding of theories, not in judgeing if they are scientifically valid. That's testability.
    You'll need logic to test a theory. Logicians can also generate a range of theoretical equivalences that could possibly show a theory needs to be overhauled, or simply refined.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beyonder View Post
    That's an argumentum ad ignorantiam.
    No, it's not. I'm not saying that it's 'true', as in 100&#37; certain. I'm saying that the probability of it being false is rolling down an asymptote headed towards zero, since everyday that we go along in this universe without observing the law being broken bolsters the inductive validity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beyonder View Post
    Doesn't take away that it's a nice heuristical device.
    Right. I have to go do my homework now. The class? You guessed it, Symbolic Logic. It's frustrating since I already know it well, aside from never having done a proof in PL.

    Here, you can read the lecture notes. Or just skip that and head off to MIT OpenCourseWare for the straight dope.

Similar Threads

  1. LOL.
    By rainfall in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 03-22-2008, 09:55 PM
  2. Now you can "lol" anything with lolcat builder!
    By Tigerlily in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 02-05-2008, 02:05 PM
  3. I'm a total n00b lol
    By machintruc in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 02-02-2008, 02:01 PM
  4. Monkeys sexually harassing women? (no, not dating lol)
    By Sahara in forum Home, Garden and Nature
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 11-08-2007, 12:19 PM
  5. Ninja Warrior! It's Like A Real Live Ninja Camp,lol.
    By ladypinkington in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-27-2007, 01:31 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO