User Tag List

First 89101112 Last

Results 91 to 100 of 141

  1. #91
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    10,501

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    This is actually wrong as well.

    A deductive argument is sound when the conclusions follow from the premises, and the premises are true.

    A deductive argument is valid when the conclusions follow from the premises, but the premises may be true or untrue.
    That would actually be an argument of definitions...whats sound and valid to me is different then you have used...not about whats right or wrong, but how I percieve things.

    edit: just one of those things where I have my own definition of "sound".
    Im out, its been fun

  2. #92
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by _Poki_ View Post
    That would actually be an argument of definitions...whats sound and valid to me is different then you have used...not about whats right or wrong, but how I percieve things.
    That's fine.

    I'm just telling you the actual definitions.

    You can go to any logician or philosophy class or book around the entire world, and this is how these terms are (properly) used.

  3. #93
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    10,501

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    That's fine.

    I'm just telling you the actual definitions.

    You can go to any logician or philosophy class or book around the entire world, and this is how these terms are used.
    Cool, I wont remember them. I am so strong on deductive reasoning or what ever reasoning, I dont feel like going back and figuring it out that definitions dont mean a whole lot to me. I generally start with a concept and or theory not a definition.
    Im out, its been fun

  4. #94
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by _Poki_ View Post
    Cool, I wont remember them. I am so strong on deductive reasoning and that path that definitions dont mean a whole lot to me. I generally start with a concept and or theory not a definition.
    Usually it's the Ti doms who are in need of starting off by agreeing on the definitions, not the TJs.

    Definitions are a type of axiom (i.e., premise). They are often concepts in themselves, but they can also lead to more complex concepts and theories, which are more complex types of axioms. In order to perform deductive reasoning, you must first agree on the axioms.

    I wonder if this is a difference between ISTPs and INTPs. Si is also a stickler for definitions, and seeing as how ISTPs use SeNi as opposed to the INTPs' NeSi, and that Ni is the function often most resistant to definitions (as its more inductive form of reasoning likes to move towards the axioms, as opposed to deductive reasoning which likes to start with axioms, and then move away from them), perhaps you guys don't work quite the same way. I could see this explaining why I don't think you guys are very good at talking about concepts, and why you guys tend to prefer very hands-on kinda stuff. The "definition", in this sense, would be the object right in front of you (SeNi), and you guys know how to work with that "definition" just fine. Never should ask you to explain it, though. :P

  5. #95
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    10,501

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Usually it's the Ti doms who are in need of the definitions, no the TJs.

    In order to perform deductive reasoning, you must agree on the axioms.

    Definitions are axioms. They are often concepts in themselves, but they can also lead to more complex concepts and theories, which are more complex forms of axioms.
    They are shortened versions of axioms, I generally build definitions on the fly, based on context from the other person, and use them as the other person uses them. Its part of understanding someone at there level of definitions.

    edit: we are as smart as the smartest and as dumb as the dumbest...we dont hold judgement in that way. Its all about understanding.
    Im out, its been fun

  6. #96
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    10,501

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Usually it's the Ti doms who are in need of starting off by agreeing on the definitions, not the TJs.

    Definitions are a type of axiom (i.e., premise). They are often concepts in themselves, but they can also lead to more complex concepts and theories, which are more complex types of axioms. In order to perform deductive reasoning, you must first agree on the axioms.

    I wonder if this is a difference between ISTPs and INTPs. Si is also a stickler for definitions, and seeing as how ISTPs use SeNi as opposed to the INTPs' NeSi, and that Ni is the function often most resistant to definitions (as its more inductive form of reasoning likes to move towards the axioms, as opposed to deductive reasoning which likes to start with axioms, and then move away from them), perhaps you guys don't work quite the same way. I could see this explaining why I don't think you guys are very good with concepts, and why you guys tend to prefer very hands-on kinda stuff.
    LOL, we are as good with concepts as you are with feelings LMAO...tertiary function for the win
    Im out, its been fun

  7. #97
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    You stand corrected.

    Again.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    I believe you're mistaking induction for deduction.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
    Actually now that you mentioned, its abductive reasoning, i thought abductive was some subclass of deductive and didnt think it as something separate.

    You said it was inductive, but its abductive. Wether they are the same thing or not is debatable.

    Lol noob :------DDDD
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  8. #98
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,130

    Default

    I think it is possible to construe abductive arguments as a deductive arguments from usually unnamed and often unconscious premises. If not so construed, I find it hard to regard abductive reasoning as having anything to do with logic. It really is just guessing.

  9. #99
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    The emphasis is on the can, indeed !
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  10. #100
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    In logic, three kinds of logical reasoning can be distinguished: deduction, induction and abduction. Given a precondition, a conclusion, and a rule that the precondition implies the conclusion, they can be explained in the following way:

    Deduction means determining the conclusion. It is using the rule and its precondition to make a conclusion. Example: "When it rains, the grass gets wet. It rained. Therefore, the grass is wet." Mathematicians are commonly associated with this style of reasoning.

    Induction means determining the rule. It is learning the rule after numerous examples of the conclusion following the precondition. Example: "The grass has been wet every time it has rained. Therefore, when it rains, the grass gets wet." Scientists are commonly associated with this style of reasoning.

    Abduction means determining the precondition. It is using the conclusion and the rule to support that the precondition could explain the conclusion. Example: "When it rains, the grass gets wet. The grass is wet, therefore, it may have rained." Diagnosticians and detectives are commonly associated with this style of reasoning.
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

Similar Threads

  1. Why do we dismiss the notion that thinkers could be more emotional than feelers?
    By Scapegoated 4 fun in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 07-07-2017, 05:42 AM
  2. [NT] Why are ENTPs naturally way more confident than INTPs?
    By Bob Smith in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 07-02-2017, 10:05 PM
  3. [NT] Why ENTPs are way more confident than INTPs?
    By Bob Smith in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-09-2017, 01:12 PM
  4. Why a Rubio or a Cruz presidency could be more dangerous than Trump
    By Olm the Water King in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 02-21-2016, 02:50 PM
  5. reasons why roommates can be a pain....
    By runvardh in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 12-03-2007, 07:02 AM

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