patrick.net

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.

indigenous says

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.

Can you make a single, coherent argument?

Heraclitusstudent says

Everything you write is an unbelievable assemblage of non-sense, ignorance, and sheer stupidity, all wrapped in condescending arrogance.

This from someone who does not know the difference between inductive and deductive.

Dan8267 says

Can you make a single, coherent argument?

Again what color is the sky in your world?

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

Can you make a single, coherent argument?

Again what color is the sky in your world?

Can you make a single argument?
Can you give us one single specific example of deductive reasoning that predicts an economic outcome?

No, you can't. You're proving it again and again.

Moron.

Heretic put me on ignore because he is a pussy.
Heretic says:

"This is an argument?
Give us one single specific example of deductive reasoning that predicts an economic outcome.
Moron."

When supply becomes more scarce the price goes up for that supply.

Heraclitusstudent says

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

indigenous says

Praxelogy is all deductive/a priori reasoning.

BWAHAHAHAAHAhAHAHA. Fucking Priceless exchange.

thunderlips11 says

BWAHAHAHAAHAhAHAHA. Fucking Priceless exchange.

As is any post with you talking about economics.

www.youtube.com/embed/e1b3Wi1lI6Y

WTF you talkin about Lips?

indigenous is proof that intelligent design is a myth.

You are so hurtful, you mutts don't have anything to say worth listening to

indigenous says

You are so hurtful, you mutts don't have anything to say worth listening to

Translation
www.youtube.com/embed/q2g4Hp7GCHU

Dan8267 says

Translation

Translation indeed--it's like the old game of Telephone, by comment 249 it's so far removed from the original thread no one would be able to figure out what it was about in two years, least of all the commenters--220 and 227 are eye-glazing dissertations. It started running off the rails at maybe 19.

P N Dr Lo R says

-220 and 227 are eye-glazing dissertations

That seems to be the consensus for the whole thread. I just do it for sport, clearly learning these mutts anything is not going to happen.

indigenous says

I just do it for sport

Me too, the only thing it's good for. Throw 'em a bone and they're on it like a pit bull on a baby.

Just how evil is a god that created Patnet commenters? lol

P N Dr Lo R says

Translation indeed

Your analogy does not apply.

HEY YOU says

Just how evil is a god that created Patnet commenters? lol

PatNet users are proof that there is no benevolent god as no such god would allow such abominations to exist.

The funny thing to me is that they are so busy trying to convince themselves that God does not exist, they never stop to think who is the
unmoved mover to their body.

Dan8267 says

Your analogy does not apply.

I didn't think it did either, I don't take this stuff seriously, it's all entertainment.

indigenous says

trying to convince themselves that God does not exist

No one is more obsessed with God than atheists.

indigenous says

The funny thing to me is that they are so busy trying to convince themselves that God does not exist, they never stop to think who is the

unmoved mover to their body.

It makes as much sense that Lucifer is the one true god than Yahweh is. The only person trying to convince himself of a delusion is you.

P N Dr Lo R says

No one is more obsessed with God than atheists.

That's a bold face lie. If assholes like you weren't corrupting our government and laws with your vile, false religion, then atheists like me wouldn't even think about religion any more than we think about other bullshit like tarot card readings, psychics, and fortune tellers.

Is someone in 1930 Germany who tries to prevent the dictator Hitler from coming to power obsessed with Hitler? Is someone who advocates keeping the cockpit door in an airplane locked obsessed with terrorism? Is someone petitioning for banking laws to prevent financial collapse of our economy obsessed with economics?

Opposing an evil such as religion is not obsession. You are simply making an ad hominem attack to cover up that you have no real arguments. This demonstrates how dishonest you are.

indigenous says

The funny thing to me is that they are so busy trying to convince themselves that God does not exist, they never stop to think who is the

Anybody notice that all the Austrian nuts have become more religious lately? And more into propagandizing and exaggerating the role of Genetics in Intelligence?

I don't mean just on the board only but in general.

P N Dr Lo R says

indigenous says

I just do it for sport

Me too, the only thing it's good for. Throw 'em a bone and they're on it like a pit bull on a baby.

Please keep it up. Every time you make a stupid argument, it makes being religious look foolish.

thunderlips11 says

Anybody notice that all the Austrian nuts have become more religious lately? And more into propagandizing and exaggerating the role of Genetics in Intelligence?

You are implying Austrians are eugenecists.

Yet this entire thread, I argued the opposite. That is non sequitur.

P N Dr Lo R says

Translation indeed--it's like the old game of Telephone, by comment 249 it's so far removed from the original thread no one would be able to figure out what it was about in two years, least of all the commenters--220 and 227 are eye-glazing dissertations. It started running off the rails at maybe 19.

Typical kind of 'argument' we get from religious nuts. Some snide remarks and derision.
They never bring up anything deep enough to not be immediately refuted.
Everything they do is trying to evade through vagueness and derision.
Indeed engaging in an intellectually honest way - that could potentially force them to change their opinions - must seem incredibly threatening to them.

Heretic says:

"Typical kind of 'argument' we get from religious nuts. Some snide remarks and derision.
They never bring up anything deep enough to not be immediately refuted.
Everything they do is trying to evade through vagueness and derision.
Indeed engaging in an intellectually honest way - that could potentially force them to change their opinions - must seem incredibly threatening to them."

Says the pussy who put me on ignore...

Are you saying that Obama is God?

Heraclitusstudent says

Typical kind of 'argument' we get from religious nuts. Some snide remarks and derision.

I never intended it as an argument--I was poking fun at it and you took it seriously. It's strange that you'd take umbrage by what you call snide remarks and derision when the whole purpose of the thread is nothing but snide remarks and derision--what do you think the title "God Sucks" implies but derision? As I've pointed out umpteen times but have been ignored, America and Western Europe are part of what's called Christendom in which until recently religious observance in the Judeo-Christian traditions has been the rule, not the exception. But at this late date, in true Alinsky style, the religiously observant are described by atheists as nuts, as I expect they were in the Soviet Union and wherever else atheism was the rule of law.

Dan8267 says

You are simply making an ad hominem attack

Well what do you think your whole thread is but an attack? Don't you like hominy?

P N Dr Lo R says

I never intended it as an argument--I was poking fun at it and you took it seriously. It's strange that you'd take umbrage by what you call snide remarks and derision when the whole purpose of the thread is nothing but snide remarks and derision--what do you think the title "God Sucks" implies but derision?

That is exactly my point: you are not trying to make an argument.
This site is not a safe zone and a level of incivility has to be expected. But look beyond that and Dan is sincerely defending a position through rational arguments. This is not what I see on the other side. Religious people (nut or not) are vague, evasive, or entirely dismissive. They are not engaging intellectually the arguments that Dan made.

And I mean, for example a vague reference to the "unmoved mover" is not an argument. This is a reference to a concept dating from Aristotle and that is meaningless in the context of everything that is known today about the laws of physics.

P N Dr Lo R says

As I've pointed out umpteen times but have been ignored, America and Western Europe are part of what's called Christendom in which until recently religious observance in the Judeo-Christian traditions has been the rule, not the exception. But at this late date, in true Alinsky style, the religiously observant are described by atheists as nuts, as I expect they were in the Soviet Union and wherever else atheism was the rule of law.

The fact that the western civilization came out of Christendom is not by itself an argument about the existence of God. What you are trying to say is that religion (specifically our tradition) confers some advantages that led to civilization. But first the opposite could easily be argued: civilization first happened before Christianity, then was crushed when Christianity spread, then civilization took off again only after the hold of religious obscurantism receded and it became acceptable to wholly dismiss religious precepts and pursue better ideas.
Second even assuming this true, you still have to explain:
- why this proves the existence of God.
- why this is the only way to do things and why we cannot free ourselves from superstition and make things better through the exercise of reason alone.

As for the soviet union, I think we can agree that the root of the problem with communism was idealism, i.e. the lack of the base, down-to-earth, pragmatism that animates capitalistic endeavors. In that sense I think the soviet union is the opposite of reason, not an example of it. And in fact if anything, communism was closer to religious idealism than to reason. Many did consider communism to be a sort of religion.