12 Jul 05
Originally posted by KneverKnightYes, you can respond to my post that already covered the two
OK, I'll try again one more time.
Car A is going East at 60 kph. Car B is going West at 60 kph. (Cruise control)
Mr. Smith looks out his window when the cars are travelling towards each other separated by 100 meters and calculates they will meet in the middle. You don't seem to have a problem with accepting this as valid.
Mr. Jones looks out hi ...[text shortened]... et[/i] in the middle. This is just as valid as Mr. Smith's calculation.
I can do no more ...
different car directions, there were points raised you are not
addressing, here, again.
Kelly
12 Jul 05
Originally posted by KellyJayYou didn't add anything relevant.
Yes, you can respond to my post that already covered the two
different car directions, there were points raised you are not
addressing, here, again.
Kelly
Cars moving towards or going away is the same.
One car going east, the other west before they meet and after, the only change to an observer is the vectors appeared to converge before and diverge after.
Why is Mr. Jones wrong to calculate both cars have met in the middle?
12 Jul 05
Originally posted by KneverKnightFine, nothing I added was relevant in your opinion.
You didn't add anything relevant.
Cars moving towards or going away is the same.
One car going east, the other west before they meet and after, the only change to an observer is the vectors appeared to converge before and diverge after.
Why is Mr. Jones wrong to calculate both cars have met in the middle?
We can call this discussion over.
Kelly
12 Jul 05
Originally posted by ColettiOf course it would; but it wouldn't be a "deductive fallacy" unless one tried to assert that it was deductive to begin with. And it's only deductively invalid, not invalid per se. And, of course, an inference can be deductively valid and still be false, if the premises are false.
Even if it was an inductive conclusion - it would still be deductively invalid.
12 Jul 05
Originally posted by vistesdMathematics as far as I can tell. This makes a great deal of sense of course given the deep rooted relationship between economics and mathematics. Naturally, Hicks devoted a great deal of his career to the study of economics and mathematics.
Irrelevant aside: What was Sir John Hick's degree? (Yeah, I know, that was a long time ago....)
I know you dubbed your question an irrelevant aside, but, given the availability of an easy answer through google, I cannot help thinking this is a mild reproach of my criticism of the King of Chin's authority as a geologist. If so, I would remind you, as I did his royal highness that as of yet he has only offered to me his standing as a geologist to support his claim of wide-spread evidence for a global flood 6000 years ago. It seems that he and I have settled this issue now and that he will proceed by offering his first piece of evidence for a worldwide flood shortly.
12 Jul 05
Originally posted by KneverKnightColetti only calls into question the natural laws of the universe when a reliance upon them undermines the credibility of his claim. Like KellyJay, he assumes uniformitarianism nearly every time he makes a makes a decision in which the state of the natural world is important.
So, you need to think real hard to call yesterday's grass shorter?
Yes or no; is today's grass longer than yesterday's?
Conversely, was yesterday's grass shorter than today's?
12 Jul 05
Originally posted by telerionI know you dubbed your question an irrelevant aside, but, given the availability of an easy answer through google, I cannot help thinking this is a mild reproach of my criticism of the King of Chin's authority as a geologist.
Mathematics as far as I can tell. This makes a great deal of sense of course given the deep rooted relationship between economics and mathematics. Naturally, Hicks devoted a great deal of his career to the study of economics and mathematics.
I know you dubbed your question an irrelevant aside, but, given the availability of an easy answer through goo ...[text shortened]... and that he will proceed by offering his first piece of evidence for a worldwide flood shortly.
Not really. It might have been a (very) mild reproach with regard to "credentialism." Credentials can be important when one is claiming some disciplinary authority. I called myself an economist for a time based on an M.A. (a stronger than average M.A.), but quit when I was no longer working as one, and had forgotten most of what I'd learned. I knew a research chemist who was regarded by Ph.D. chemists as the "real deal," and he had only a high school education--but he was a genius. I agree with you in general; just wanted to point out there are exceptions. When one claims the authority of credentials, they are certainly open to question.
If I was off-base, I apologize. 🙂
12 Jul 05
Originally posted by vistesdA conclusion can be deductively invalid regardless to someone asserting it is a deductive conclusion. Either the conclusion is invalid deductively or it is not.
Of course it would; but it wouldn't be a "deductive fallacy" unless one tried to assert that it was deductive to begin with. And it's only deductively invalid, not invalid per se. And, of course, an inference can be deductively valid and still be false, if the premises are false.
Any valid conclusion can be false if the premises are false. But if the argument is invalid - the truth of the conclusion is unknowable. The only knowable true conclusion is one that follows validly from true premises.