Zarathustra
Let Go Of Your Team
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 8,110
...its probability
No, it's not.
It's a logical truism.
It has nothing to do with probability.
You shouldn't be condescending when you don't know what you're talking about.
...its probability
No, it's not.
It's a logical certainty.
You shouldn't be condescending when you don't know what you're talking about.
No, it's not.
It's a logical truism.
It has nothing to do with probability.
You shouldn't be condescending when you don't know what you're talking about.
You want logic cetainty
IF all men are mortal and socrates is a man THEN
socrates=mortal;
ELSE
socrates=immortal;
END IF
now that its changed to Truism
Truism - A truism is a claim that is so obvious or self-evident as to be hardly worth mentioning...sorry I had to mention it
Intellectual - intelligence = lots of thought + no sense
None of this matters, and adding a wink at the end doesn't make it any smarter.
Congratulations on writing a few lines of code and pasting a definition of truism from the dictionary.
It has nothing to do with probability, and your definition of deduction was actually just a form of induction and/or abduction.
Once again, the smartest thing you've written in this whole thread was above:
Unfortunately you don't understand how aptly it applies to you.
Actually...those definitions were copy and pasted from a google search. You werent arguing with me, I was just a proxy I have no clue what the definitions of any of this crap is.
Well, then the google search was wrong.
And I'd recommend knowing what you're talking about before pasting erroneous information.
Well, then the google search was wrong.
And I'd recommend knowing what you're talking about before pasting erroneous information.
Yeah, I didn't read the third definition and just skimmed over the post. That doesn't make this thread any more insightful. *sigh*
If your premise is screwed up your deduction is wrong....but you know what your "deductive reasoning is sound"
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.
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 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 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.
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.
You stand corrected.
Again.
I believe you're mistaking induction for deduction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning