patrick.net

P N Dr Lo R says

it proves that atheism is certainly labor intensive.

Whereas stupidity sure comes effortlessly.
To some more than others.

indigenous says

Just like always the mutts, fail to distinguish between inductive & deductive...

That's not a counter-argument. It's an admission that you are wrong but not man enough to own up to it.

Heraclitusstudent says

2 - Quantum mechanics is not nothing either. It is part of the universe and cannot be invoked to explain it, otherwise the next question would be "Why are there quantum mechanics dimensions instead of nothing". "why is there such a thing as energy instead of nothing". It doesn't even start to address the problem.

He said that the question "why" is not an appropriate question to ask.

In any case, this is very difficult matter to wrap one's mind around. My suggestion is to think a lot, really a lot, before writing.

Dan8267 says

That's not a counter-argument. It's an admission that you are wrong but not man enough to own up to it.

Sure it is, here you are trying to apply the inductive method to something that does't exist. An oxymoron...

indigenous says

Just like always the mutts, fail to distinguish between inductive & deductive...

You're so smart. Give us an example of deductive reasoning outside mathematics.

Praxelogy is all deductive/a priori reasoning.

indigenous says

Praxelogy is all deductive/a priori reasoning.

Give us a specific example of "praxelogy" reasoning.

Heraclitusstudent says

Give us a specific example of "praxelogy" reasoning.

Man acts, this is self evident, and irrefutable

From this you can deduce that man acts purposefully.

indigenous says

Man acts

What kind of actions are you referring to? Be specific.

indigenous says

From this you can deduce that man acts purposefully.

Seriously?
How?

You guys respond to indiginous' posts. Again and again. Why?

It makes me laugh when one insists on deductive reasoning.
To make deductive reasoning, you need to have (1) logical rules to apply to general situations (logical implication), or (2) a well defined set possible of alternatives (a logical OR ) so you could generalize that something is true in all cases.
(1) doesn't exist in the real world: the only general rules that exist are generalized from known cases through induction . This is the case even for the laws of physics. i.e. it's all induction .
(2) doesn't exist either because in any real world situation it's always possible to imagine more cases that could happen.

So here we go. I hope indiginous will not bring up deductive reasoning again.

Heraclitusstudent says

It makes me laugh

all these atheists trying to convince themselves God doesn't exist. They made it to 201 today and haven't settled anything.

errc says

You guys respond to indiginous' posts. Again and again. Why?

To demonstrate to the entire world that he is a fool lest anyone follow him.

P N Dr Lo R says

all these atheists trying to convince themselves God doesn't exist.

Boy, you have your head stuck so far up your ass you can't see anything.

Atheists no more choose whether or not to believe in a god then they choose whether to believe the world is flat or round. Evidence and reasoning demands acceptance of the truth.

I no more have to convince myself of the falsehood of your god then you have to convince yourself that Thor does not exist.

Do you really think that anyone dumb enough to follow indiginous, is smart enough to be reasoned out of such a darwinist path?

Heraclitusstudent says

indigenous says

Man acts

What kind of actions are you referring to? Be specific.

indigenous says

From this you can deduce that man acts purposefully.

Seriously?

How?

in order to survive

errc says

Do you really think that anyone dumb enough to follow indiginous, is smart enough to be reasoned out of such a darwinist path?

I think there are young adolescents just starting to use the Internet to challenge their religious beliefs, new ones every day. I think such minds are impressionable and people like indigenous could lead them along the wrong path. They should have an alternative.

Words last far longer than man. When we are dust, PatNet content will live on in some form or another.

Heraclitusstudent says

It makes me laugh when one insists on deductive reasoning.

To make deductive reasoning, you need to have (1) logical rules to apply to general situations (logical implication), or (2) a well defined set possible of alternatives (a logical OR ) so you could generalize that something is true in all cases.

(1) doesn't exist in the real world: the only general rules that exist are generalized from known cases through induction . This is the case even for the laws of physics. i.e. it's all induction .

(2) doesn't exist either because in any real world situation it's always possible to imagine more cases that could happen.

So here we go. I hope indiginous will not bring up deductive reasoning again.

It make me laugh when they insist on using the scientific method AKA a posteriori in things that cannot be proved, e.g. global warming, economics, psychology. There is no controlled experiment with these things.

No they just want to escape to survive in a better place.

Dan8267 says

I no more have to convince myself of the falsehood of your god then

Well you clocked in at 7:47 a.m. and your most recent comment was made at 7:30 p.m., you must be trying to prove something. I can think of a lot better ways to spend a day.

P N Dr Lo R says

Well you clocked in at 7:47 a.m. and your most recent comment was made at 7:30 p.m., you must be trying to prove something. I can think of a lot better ways to spend a day.

1. When I am on PatNet is irrelevant, especially since I'm not in that time zone.
2. Clearly you cannot think of anything better to do since you are also on PatNet, you hypocrite.
3. I like discussing issues with other PatNet users. If you think that's stupid, then feel free to log out of PatNet and never come back.

indigenous says

in order to survive

I'm sorry, where is the reasoning?
"Man act therefore man act in order to survive" is not a reasoning. Where is the logic?
- Man doesn't always act purposefully. (plays a game mindlessly).
- Man sometimes act not for the goal of survival (watches TV).
- Some men survive without acting. (retired, sick people)
- Some men, indeed, act to take their own lives.
- Some men act but don't survive.
It's just gibberish.

Let me give you an example of a reasoning.
- rule: All men die
- premise: you're a man
- conclusion: therefore you will die.
Inductive reasoning.

indigenous says

It make me laugh when they insist on using the scientific method AKA a posteriori in things that cannot be proved, e.g. global warming, economics, psychology. There is no controlled experiment with these things.

You're free to argue, as a lot of people do, that psychology and economics are not science.
Climate science is making quantitative predictions that are then compared to reality and lead to correction and enhancements of the underlying knowledge.
It doesn't need to be in a lab. It doesn't need to be perfect in order to ballpark the problem.
And yes, it's all induction.

Heraclitusstudent says

I'm sorry, where is the reasoning?

"Man act therefore man act in order to survive" is not a reasoning. Where is the logic?

The logic is that is what people do.

- Man doesn't always act purposefully. (plays a game mindlessly).

A large percentage of the economy is spent on entertainment. It is certainly purposeful action.

- Man sometimes act not for the goal of survival (watches TV).

again entertainment.

- Some men survive without acting. (retired, sick people)

Retired person is acting to enjoy himself and consume what he has saved.

- Some men, indeed, act to take their own lives.

survival in what they believe is a better place, as with the suicide bombers
- Some men act but don't survive.

That doesn't show their intent
It's just gibberish.
Actually it is profound.

Let me give you an example of a reasoning.

- rule: All men die

- premise: you're a man

- conclusion: therefore you will die.

Inductive reasoning.

that is deductive reasoning

Heraclitusstudent says

Climate science is making quantitative predictions that are then compared to reality and lead to correction and enhancements of the underlying knowledge.

It doesn't need to be in a lab. It doesn't need to be perfect in order to ballpark the problem.

And that is what the global warming crowd do to no end. Just the premise is absurd, deductive reasoning would say that the biggest factor in the temperature of the earth is the sun and sun spots/solar activity. Or more deductive reasoning would be Occam's razor.

They do this with Keynesian economics as well. The idea is that there are 7 billion people on this planet each of them conducting an average of what 10 transactions a day equals 70 billion transactions a day. Somehow you are going to conduct a controlled experiment on this many transactions is absurd. This is where deductive reasoning is the only useful method to predict the economy.

indigenous says

Heraclitusstudent says

Let me give you an example of a reasoning.


- rule: All men die


- premise: you're a man


- conclusion: therefore you will die.


Inductive reasoning.

that is deductive reasoning

indigenous is full of shit and his lies are easily debunked. Nonetheless, Heraclitoris did give an example of deductive reasoning, not inductive reasoning. And at best, indigenous is using clearly flawed abductive reasoning. The definitions follow.

Deductive reasoning is a basic form of valid reasoning. Deductive reasoning, or deduction, starts out with a general statement, or hypothesis, and examines the possibilities to reach a specific, logical conclusion, according to the University of California. The scientific method uses deduction to test hypotheses and theories. "In deductive inference, we hold a theory and based on it we make a prediction of its consequences. That is, we predict what the observations should be if the theory were correct. We go from the general — the theory — to the specific — the observations," said Dr. Sylvia Wassertheil-Smoller, a researcher and professor emerita at Albert Einstein College of Medicine.

In deductive reasoning, if something is true of a class of things in general, it is also true for all members of that class. For example, "All men are mortal. Harold is a man. Therefore, Harold is mortal." For deductive reasoning to be sound, the hypothesis must be correct. It is assumed that the premises, "All men are mortal" and "Harold is a man" are true. Therefore, the conclusion is logical and true.

According to the University of California, deductive inference conclusions are certain provided the premises are true.

Inductive reasoning is the opposite of deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning makes broad generalizations from specific observations. "In inductive inference, we go from the specific to the general. We make many observations, discern a pattern, make a generalization, and infer an explanation or a theory," Wassertheil-Smoller told Live Science. "In science there is a constant interplay between inductive inference (based on observations) and deductive inference (based on theory), until we get closer and closer to the 'truth,' which we can only approach but not ascertain with complete certainty."

Even if all of the premises are true in a statement, inductive reasoning allows for the conclusion to be false. Here’s an example: "Harold is a grandfather. Harold is bald. Therefore, all grandfathers are bald." The conclusion does not follow logically from the statements.

Inductive reasoning has its place in the scientific method. Scientists use it to form hypotheses and theories. Deductive reasoning allows them to apply the theories to specific situations.

Another form of scientific reasoning that doesn't fit in with inductive or deductive reasoning is abductive. Abductive reasoning usually starts with an incomplete set of observations and proceeds to the likeliest possible explanation for the group of observations, according to Butte College. It is based on making and testing hypotheses using the best information available. It often entails making an educated guess after observing a phenomenon for which there is no clear explanation.

Abductive reasoning is useful for forming hypotheses to be tested. Abductive reasoning is often used by doctors who make a diagnosis based on test results and by jurors who make decisions based on the evidence presented to them.

In short, valid deductive reasoning provides complete mathematical certainty of conclusions when the premise is correct. Deductive reasoning is proof. Inductive reasoning does not and cannot prove anything, but is useful for constructing theories that can be tested against observation. Abductive reasoning is highly abusive and cannot be trusted for this. The only use of adbuctive reasoning is to generate hypotheses, i.e. guesses, to be tested.

indigenous says

deductive reasoning would say that the biggest factor in the temperature of the earth is the sun and sun spots/solar activity.

A patently false statement. Global warming is well understood as a consequence of known laws of physics and observation. Deductive reasoning demonstrates that the greenhouse effect is caused, with no uncertainty, by gases like methane and carbon dioxide. Inductive reasoning that the world is warming has been confirmed with thousands of independent lines of observational evidence from everywhere on the planet supported by literally millions of independent pieces of evidence, all of which confirm climate change and none of which contradict it.

The evidence for climate change is far, far greater than the evidence that George Washington ever even existed. As such, it is a far more ridiculous statement to make that climate change is false than it is to say that George Washington is a fictional character in American fairy tales.

indigenous says

Somehow you are going to conduct a controlled experiment on this many transactions is absurd. This is where deductive reasoning is the only useful method to predict the economy.

Wrong. Your statement is disproved thousands of times every single day whenever a weather report is published. Weather is a larger and even more complex system than the world economy or any other economy. Weather has orders of magnitudes more "transactions" or stimuli than any economic system.

Yet, accurate weather predictions are made every hour. This is possible because of accurate simulations of complex systems. If this can be done with weather systems, then it can be done with the far simpler systems we call economies.

Back to the god hypothesis.

Deductive reasoning proves, absolutely confirms as mathematically true, that no Standard Monotheist God (SMG) can exist where SMG is a god that is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. I have given many a prior proofs of this, as have others like DarkMatter2525.

Deductive reasoning also proves that no supernatural entity, including gods, can ever interact with the natural universe including by conveying any information such as instructions or moral codes.

Every single reason assumes a supernatural god and the three terrible religious families, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, assume SMG. Any attempt to move away from SMG is an outright rejection of those three families of religions.

Any attempt to move away from a supernatural god is a rejection of all possible gods as a natural being, no matter how powerful, is constrained by the same laws of nature as you and I and therefore it is meaningless and disingenuous to refer to such a being as a god. Sheldon Cooper creating a universe with a particle accelerator is not a god even if he is your creator.

Heraclitusstudent says

Atheists on the other hand have to grow up and take responsibility for it.

We see that with global warming and other environmental problems.

When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, under the influence of massive defense spending by Ronald Reagan—SDI played no small part in this--it orphaned leftists all over the world, especially in the West, to whom it had been the ultimate Utopia. Millions on the left had lived their lives with the belief that communism was the way of the future (we didn't worry about Islam then). Although institutional communism was vanquished, it didn’t change the minds of those individuals. I believe this is the real source of hatred directed towards Ronald Reagan, who thumbed his nose at their system and cracked jokes about its failures. Today the people whom I call Little Soviets are the incarnation of the evil impulses that animated the Evil Empire in its justification of hatred based on class and force-fed atheism. Over the past ten years or so they have begun coalescing around the bandwagon of global warming/environmentalism/climate change, to in effect establish a new Mecca of central planning, the next Utopia.

Dan8267 says

indigenous is full of shit and his lies are easily debunked.

Dan is full of shit and his lies are easily debunked.

His entire blather is no more than opinion.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

indigenous is full of shit and his lies are easily debunked.

Dan is full of shit and his lies are easily debunked.

His entire blather is no more than opinion.

Then feel free to debunk my statements as I have done with yours. Otherwise, you are a whining little impotent pussy.

Of course you cannot discredit anything I have said. You are an idiot and you are vastly outgunned in any intellectual arena.

Dan8267 says

Then feel free to debunk my statements as I have done with yours.

Ok, everything you said is opinion.

The other means that you have no more arguments, i.e. just ad hom.

indigenous says

Ok, everything you said is opinion.

Empirically false. Counter-examples just from my second prior post.

Dan8267 says

valid deductive reasoning provides complete mathematical certainty of conclusions when the premise is correct.

Dan8267 says

Deductive reasoning is proof.

Dan8267 says

Inductive reasoning does not and cannot prove anything

Dan8267 says

Global warming is well understood as a consequence of known laws of physics and observation.

Dan8267 says

Deductive reasoning demonstrates that the greenhouse effect is caused, with no uncertainty, by gases like methane and carbon dioxide.

Dan8267 says

Inductive reasoning that the world is warming has been confirmed with thousands of independent lines of observational evidence from everywhere on the planet supported by literally millions of independent pieces of evidence, all of which confirm climate change and none of which contradict it.

Dan8267 says

Weather is a larger and even more complex system than the world economy or any other economy. Weather has orders of magnitudes more "transactions" or stimuli than any economic system.

Dan8267 says

accurate weather predictions are made every hour. This is possible because of accurate simulations of complex systems.

Dan8267 says

Deductive reasoning proves, absolutely confirms as mathematically true, that no Standard Monotheist God (SMG) can exist where SMG is a god that is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

Dan8267 says

Deductive reasoning also proves that no supernatural entity, including gods, can ever interact with the natural universe including by conveying any information such as instructions or moral codes.

Well, that's a lot of factual statements, not opinions. That sound you are hearing is me bitch-slapping your false accusation with facts obtained from a few lines above your accusation. You are truly pathetic. Granted, that statement is an opinion, but it is one well-founded by your posts on this thread.

Oh, and an ad hominem fallacy is trying to discredit your opponent's argument by attacking him instead of his arguments. I've attacked your arguments and destroyed them. Attacking your character isn't an attempt to discredit your already disproved arguments, but simply is to insult and humiliate you. It's icing on the cakes, and that's perfecting valid. Your arguments aren't flawed because you are an idiot. Your arguments are flawed because they are illogical and you also happen to be an idiot. Point out both independent observations is perfectly valid.

Dan8267 says

Nonetheless, Heraclitoris did give an example of deductive reasoning, not inductive reasoning.

Dan8267 says

deductive inference conclusions are certain provided the premises are true.

The example I gave relies on induction: indeed the rule "All men die" is inducted from past experience and as such can, conceivably, be wrong.
I did choose an example that is as close to certainty as can be (that and taxes), but nonetheless it is still opened to discussion: we could one day upload indigenous's brain in a computer, carve the data on diamonds and ship it into space with the instructions to animate it, thus conferring him some form of immortality. (granted that would be a huge waste).
But the point remain: this kind of reasoning is different in nature than mathematical reasoning, which is not opened to discussion.
And the wider point remains: all knowledge about the world is by nature uncertain, in the same way a map is uncertain and must be periodically updated. All rules we can know about the world are inductive and so can all conceivably be wrong.

And we know "God does not exist" with same certainty "All men die": after observing for millenniums that it doesn't, we can be quite convinced it doesn't.

"Empirically false. Counter-examples just from my second prior post."

Cute but I was talking about your last post.

RE: the ad hom, what color is the sky in your world?

At heretic, deductive goes from the general to the specific. Inductive goes from the specific to the general.

indigenous says

At heretic, deductive goes from the general to the specific. Inductive goes from the specific to the general.

There are no general propositions about the world that were not inducted first.

Heraclitusstudent says

Dan8267 says

deductive inference conclusions are certain provided the premises are true.

The example I gave relies on induction: indeed the rule "All men die" is inducted from past experience and as such can, conceivably, be wrong.

All premises are induced or asserted, so by that excuse all deductive reasoning would be inductive reason rendering the terms meaningless.

You don't have to cover up your mistake. It would look better if you just said, "my mistake, I got the terms mixed up. I meant deductive.". Getting terminology mixed up is not a big deal. It happens; we're all humans. Clearing up terminology so that we don't miscommunicate is important, but doing so isn't a criticism of the person who used the terms incorrectly. Again, mixing up similar words is common and not a big deal.

Making material incorrect statements to cover up your unimportant mistake, however, is a big deal. Not only is it intellectual dishonest, but it also only serves to add further confusion to a conversation.

The example you gave, in which a general statement accepted as true inescapable leads to more specific statements known to be true, is the very definition of deductive reasoning. To help people remember the difference, just the following.

Deductive reasoning deduces specific consequences of a general statement and therefore is proof of those consequences as long as the premise is correct. Inductive reasoning induces a general pattern from specific examples and may not be a true generalization even if the specific examples are true.

indigenous says

Cute but I was talking about your last post.

Be specific about what you are claiming and what evidence you offer to support such claims. So far, you have said nothing of consequence and have only demonstrated your unwillingness to admit when you are wrong and proved so beyond any doubt.

Dan8267 says

Making material incorrect statements to cover up your unimportant mistake, however, is a big deal.

I didn't make incorrect statements nor am I trying to cover it up. I am well aware of what a deduction is, and I already was when I wrote what I wrote.
It should occur to you that anyone can take an inductive fact (for ex: "all lawyers are rich"), wrap it up as a rule ("if lawyer, then rich"), then call applying this rule deductive reasoning ("Joe is a lawyer, therefore Joe is rich".). If your point is that it is deductive because 1 rule is being applied, then you are the one playing with words and terminology. The reasoning as a whole remains inductive, even if applying the "rule" is deductive.

Dan8267 says

So far, you have said nothing of consequence and have only demonstrated your unwillingness to admit when you are wrong and proved so beyond any doubt.

Seeing how, Man Acts, is the first axiom of Austrian Praxelogy it says something of consequence all right. The fact that that is your disposition on the subject speaks to your understanding of the subject.

indigenous says

The idea is that there are 7 billion people on this planet each of them conducting an average of what 10 transactions a day equals 70 billion transactions a day. Somehow you are going to conduct a controlled experiment on this many transactions is absurd. This is where deductive reasoning is the only useful method to predict the economy.

Everything you write is an unbelievable assemblage of non-sense, ignorance, and sheer stupidity, all wrapped in condescending arrogance.
Give us a specific example of deductive reasoning that predicts an economic outcome. Or stfu.