User Tag List

First 910111213 Last

Results 101 to 110 of 141

  1. #101
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    And how many have you abducted already ?
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  2. #102
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by entropie View Post
    And how many have you abducted already ?
    I have, but only once
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  3. #103
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    rrrr
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  4. #104
    morose bourgeoisie
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,859

    Default

    Another thread about nothing.

  5. #105
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    I understand that intelligence is not your strong suit, so let me just spell this all out for you:

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    25175173 + 34223614 = 59398787

    Voila, i made a new truth via deduction(okay maybe someone did come up with that before, but i cba to add more numbers to that, since this should prove my point already).
    Wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    Another bit less simplified example would be jungian typology(yea yea someone might disagree with its validity, but just an example).
    Wrong again.

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    How do you think many of the scientific discoveries are made? First there is a hypothesis that is made using deduction, then the hypothesis is tested and validated. The new truth was made via deduction before the validation, even tho it might had not been proven true before, but nevertheless it was true and was made up by deduction.
    Wrong a third time.

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

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
    Right.

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    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.
    Wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    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.
    What about your statement that I corrected pointed specifically to abductive vs. inductive reasoning?

    Answer: nothing.

    It was ambiguous as to whether it was inductive or abductive.

    Furthermore, as the definitions from wikipedia point out, induction is the style more commonly associated with science, while abduction is more commonly associated with diagnosis and detective-work, and the example you described, and which I said you were mistakenly calling deduction, when it was really induction, had to do with science.

    Which, finally, brings me to my broader point: that what are now known separately as abductive and inductive reasoning for hundreds of years of the scientific method were both known simply as inductive reasoning. As such, I, and many other people smarter than yourself, consider the two present-day concepts to be subclasses of what used to be known simply as inductive reasoning. It is not an inaccurate way to use the terms, as say, it is to use deductive reasoning to signify abductive or inductive reasoning.

    You're the noob who thought it was all just deductive.

  6. #106
    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
    I understand that intelligence is not your strong suit, so let me just spell this all out for you:



    Wrong.



    Wrong again.



    Wrong a third time.



    Right.



    Wrong.



    What about your statement that I corrected pointed specifically to abductive vs. inductive reasoning?

    Answer: nothing.

    It was ambiguous as to whether it was inductive or abductive.

    Furthermore, as the definitions from wikipedia point out, induction is the style more commonly associated with science.

    And, to the broader point, what are now known separately as abductive and inductive reasoning for hundreds of years of the scientific method were both known simply as inductive reasoning. As such, I, and many other people smarter than yourself, consider the two present-day concepts to be subclasses of what used to be known simply as inductive reasoning. It is not an inaccurate way to use the terms, as say, it is to use deductive reasoning to signify abductive or inductive reasoning.

    You're the noob who thought it was all just deductive.
    Wrong.

    I and many other people smarter than you think that abductive and inductive are different things.
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  7. #107
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    Wrong.

    I and many other people smarter than you think that abductive and inductive are different things.
    Wrong a fifth time.

    I know that the two modern-day concepts can be delineated as two separate things. I just consider them each to be subclasses under the broader umbrella of what was once, and for a long time, considered just one concept. You, though, apparently lack the capacity to understand why people put them under the same broader conceptual umbrella.

    It's cool, though, man. Everyone reading this knows that you're wrong.

  8. #108
    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
    Wrong a fifth time.

    I know that the two modern-day concepts can be delineated as two separate things. I just put them as subclasses under the broader umbrella of what was once, and for a long time, considered just one concept.

    It's cool, though, man. Everyone reading this knows that you're wrong.

    Game. Set. Match.
    Only cry cuz crappeur :-----DDD

    Induction means determining the rule

    Abduction means determining the precondition
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  9. #109
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Rather fittingly, this whole exercise has become a performance piece showing how INTJs can be more intellectual than INTPs.

    You're welcome, @Mycroft.

  10. #110
    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
    Rather fittingly, this whole exercise has become a performance piece showing how INTJs can be more intellectual than INTPs.

    You're welcome, @Mycroft.
    Lies. You are only showing the irrational egoistic nature of yourself.

    For example black swans are mistakes in induction, but have nothing to do with abduction, since abduction doesent try to predict rules, but looks for probable causes.

    Easy served(by a noob) XD
    "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