|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Feb 10, 2020 12:06:31 GMT
"Two muckles in the duckle and one in the sky" Is that a saying? Never come across it before. What does it mean? Google won't help, either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2020 12:40:24 GMT
"Two muckles in the duckle and one in the sky" Is that a saying? Never come across it before. What does it mean? Google won't help, either. It's Irish... means it ain't gonna happen. |
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Feb 10, 2020 16:44:20 GMT
In the beginning god created the heavens and the earth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Feb 10, 2020 17:09:45 GMT
No, that is false. It only means that you don't have evidence for a murder, it does not mean that a murder didn't take place. Logic 101: if it's raining then the sidewalk is wet, but a wet sidewalk is not evidence for rain. Just because there isn't someone standing outside hosing down the sidewalk right now isn't evidence that no one did. I never said it means a murder didn't take place; I said it's evidence a murder didn't take place. Evidence isn't proof. A lack of evidence when evidence would be expected given something happened is evidence that that something didn't happen. If there wasn't a murder you'd expect to see no evidence of a murder 100% of the time, while if there was a murder you'd expect to see no evidence of a murder <100% of the time. So a lack of evidence of a murder is, indeed, evidence that no murder happened. A wet sidewalk is also, indeed, evidence of rain. Given that it rained, you'd expect to see a wet sidewalk 100% of the time, while if it didn't rain you'd expect to see a wet sidewalk <100% of the time. If there is some other situation in which you'd also expect to see a wet sidewalk 100% of the time--say your neighbor's sprinkler always wets your sidewalk--then a wet sidewalk would be equal evidence for both rain and your neighbor's sprinkler and whichever was more likely would depend on your prior information about both (how often does your neighbor run their sprinkler? Was it expected to rain today? etc.). Semantics isn't logic. Lack of evidence is just lack of evidence. The sidewalk example isn't a puzzle but meant to teach basic logical reasoning. If you leap to the conclusion that a wet sidewalk means rain, you have made an error in logic. You may be right, but it's a guess. A perfect logical deduction/argument can be wrong, just as you can make a guess and be right. |
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Feb 10, 2020 17:11:04 GMT
No, that is false. It only means that you don't have evidence for a murder, it does not mean that a murder didn't take place. Logic 101: if it's raining then the sidewalk is wet, but a wet sidewalk is not evidence for rain. Just because there isn't someone standing outside hosing down the sidewalk right now isn't evidence that no one did. As I said earlier on the link, there is the scope of the proof and the thoroughness of the investigation. If the thoroughness of the investigation is adequate for the scope of the proof, then a negative proof is possible. If 23 people are on an expedition and they all show up at a meeting during the expedition, then there was no murder. The wider the scope, such as a large city, the more thorough the investigation necessary. To prove there was no murder in a very large city can be beyond the resources of investigators to establish. That is not logic. |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Feb 10, 2020 18:03:52 GMT
"A stitch in time saves nine" Why's that one junk? Basically just means it's best to fix a problem before it gets worse and ends up costing you much more. That one confused me, until I added commas. "A stitch, in time, saves nine" Is that proper use of an Oxford comma?
|
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Feb 10, 2020 18:20:37 GMT
the passion of the vice
if allah had a dolla
for
every time
some born again christian
would holla:
jesus loves you but i signed no such contract.
muslims would
be
packing the firepower
and
we'd all be pretending
to love
a different god
with
all our hearts.
sjw 02/10/20 inspired at this very moment in time by the ram in ramifications.
from the 'blasphemy series' of poems
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Feb 10, 2020 18:45:54 GMT
Follow your heart ... usually given in the context of relationships and probably the dumbest advice you can give. Emotions are a chemical cocktail, attraction often doesn't last, follow your brain and use good sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 10, 2020 21:56:38 GMT
As I said earlier on the link, there is the scope of the proof and the thoroughness of the investigation. If the thoroughness of the investigation is adequate for the scope of the proof, then a negative proof is possible. If 23 people are on an expedition and they all show up at a meeting during the expedition, then there was no murder. The wider the scope, such as a large city, the more thorough the investigation necessary. To prove there was no murder in a very large city can be beyond the resources of investigators to establish. That is not logic. Okay, let's dumb it down. Can you prove the baseball in not in the toolbox? Yes, just open the toolbox and check every space the size of a baseball or larger. It doesn't take very long.
|
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Feb 10, 2020 22:43:47 GMT
Is that a saying? Never come across it before. What does it mean? Google won't help, either. It's Irish... means it ain't gonna happen. I see - but how is it a junk saying? Is it gonna happen?
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 11, 2020 1:19:00 GMT
Why's that one junk? Basically just means it's best to fix a problem before it gets worse and ends up costing you much more. That one confused me, until I added commas. "A stitch, in time, saves nine" Is that proper use of an Oxford comma? I don't think the comma makes sense here. It might make more sense to just rephrase it as "a stitch at the right time saves nine," but that's far less catchy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 11, 2020 1:24:00 GMT
I never said it means a murder didn't take place; I said it's evidence a murder didn't take place. Evidence isn't proof. A lack of evidence when evidence would be expected given something happened is evidence that that something didn't happen. If there wasn't a murder you'd expect to see no evidence of a murder 100% of the time, while if there was a murder you'd expect to see no evidence of a murder <100% of the time. So a lack of evidence of a murder is, indeed, evidence that no murder happened. A wet sidewalk is also, indeed, evidence of rain. Given that it rained, you'd expect to see a wet sidewalk 100% of the time, while if it didn't rain you'd expect to see a wet sidewalk <100% of the time. If there is some other situation in which you'd also expect to see a wet sidewalk 100% of the time--say your neighbor's sprinkler always wets your sidewalk--then a wet sidewalk would be equal evidence for both rain and your neighbor's sprinkler and whichever was more likely would depend on your prior information about both (how often does your neighbor run their sprinkler? Was it expected to rain today? etc.). Semantics isn't logic. Lack of evidence is just lack of evidence. The sidewalk example isn't a puzzle but meant to teach basic logical reasoning. If you leap to the conclusion that a wet sidewalk means rain, you have made an error in logic. You may be right, but it's a guess. A perfect logical deduction/argument can be wrong, just as you can make a guess and be right. This isn't semantics, it's math. Specifically, it's Bayes's Theorem, which is the logic underlying science. I'd suggest reading this: www.lesswrong.com/posts/mnS2WYLCGJP2kQkRn/absence-of-evidence-is-evidence-of-absenceAgain, nobody is "leaping" to the conclusion that a wet sidewalk means rain; I said it's evidence of rain. You don't seem to realize that evidence is not proof. Evidence is any observation that makes a hypothesis more probable. Observing a wet sidewalk makes it more probable it rained for the reasons I gave in my last post. I'm sorry if you're having trouble following the logic/math, but I assure it the logic/math is correct.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Feb 11, 2020 1:46:37 GMT
Okay, let's dumb it down. Can you prove the baseball in not in the toolbox? Yes, just open the toolbox and check every space the size of a baseball or larger. It doesn't take very long. I dumbed it down as much as I know how and it didn't help. I used the most basic example of logic from a logic textbook and it went over people's heads. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 11, 2020 1:56:43 GMT
Okay, let's dumb it down. Can you prove the baseball in not in the toolbox? Yes, just open the toolbox and check every space the size of a baseball or larger. It doesn't take very long. I dumbed it down as much as I know how and it didn't help. I used the most basic example of logic from a logic textbook and it went over people's heads. It's not going over our heads. What we're saying is going over yours. Reading a logic textbook and being able to actually apply logic to these issues is two very different things. Perhaps if you understood the evidence/proof distinction you'd get this. You also haven't actually logically refuted anything we've said, nor any examples we've given.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Feb 11, 2020 1:58:36 GMT
Semantics isn't logic. Lack of evidence is just lack of evidence. The sidewalk example isn't a puzzle but meant to teach basic logical reasoning. If you leap to the conclusion that a wet sidewalk means rain, you have made an error in logic. You may be right, but it's a guess. A perfect logical deduction/argument can be wrong, just as you can make a guess and be right. This isn't semantics, it's math. Specifically, it's Bayes's Theorem, which is the logic underlying science. I'd suggest reading this: www.lesswrong.com/posts/mnS2WYLCGJP2kQkRn/absence-of-evidence-is-evidence-of-absenceAgain, nobody is "leaping" to the conclusion that a wet sidewalk means rain; I said it's evidence of rain. You don't seem to realize that evidence is not proof. Evidence is any observation that makes a hypothesis more probable. Observing a wet sidewalk makes it more probable it rained for the reasons I gave in my last post. I'm sorry if you're having trouble following the logic/math, but I assure it the logic/math is correct. No. If you want to convince me, construct a logical argument. Semantics, random links you googled, and smarm aren't logic. If you can't understand the most basic example of logic and can't reply using logic, why should I pay any attention to you? |
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Feb 11, 2020 2:01:42 GMT
I dumbed it down as much as I know how and it didn't help. I used the most basic example of logic from a logic textbook and it went over people's heads. It's not going over our heads. What we're saying is going over yours. Reading a logic textbook and being able to actually apply logic to these issues is two very different things. Perhaps if you understood the evidence/proof distinction you'd get this. You also haven't actually logically refuted anything we've said, nor any examples we've given. Post something logical. Your failure is not my failure. And who is we? You and the other dude are not even on the same page, lol. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 11, 2020 3:23:34 GMT
This isn't semantics, it's math. Specifically, it's Bayes's Theorem, which is the logic underlying science. I'd suggest reading this: www.lesswrong.com/posts/mnS2WYLCGJP2kQkRn/absence-of-evidence-is-evidence-of-absenceAgain, nobody is "leaping" to the conclusion that a wet sidewalk means rain; I said it's evidence of rain. You don't seem to realize that evidence is not proof. Evidence is any observation that makes a hypothesis more probable. Observing a wet sidewalk makes it more probable it rained for the reasons I gave in my last post. I'm sorry if you're having trouble following the logic/math, but I assure it the logic/math is correct. No. If you want to convince me, construct a logical argument. Semantics, random links you googled, and smarm aren't logic. If you can't understand the most basic example of logic and can't reply using logic, why should I pay any attention to you? How do you "construct a logical argument" without semantics? You have to know what words mean before a logical argument makes any sense. Besides, you haven't explained what's "illogical" about any of the examples I've given: "Given it rained, you'd expect to see a wet sidewalk 100% of the time. Given it didn't rain, you'd expect to see a wet sidewalk <100% of the time. Therefore, a wet sidewalk is evidence of rain." What is illogical about that? Remember, evidence isn't proof. Yes, that's semantics, but it's necessary to understand when discussing this. The other dude and I are taking two different routes to get to the same place. His "baseball in a toolbox" example can be rephrased the way I've been saying it: "Given there's no baseball in the toolbox, you'd expect to see no evidence of a baseball in the toolbox 100% of the time. Given there is a baseball in a toolbox, you'd expect to see no evidence of a baseball in the toolbox <100%. Therefore, not seeing the baseball in the toolbox is evidence the baseball isn't in the toolbox." Pretty obvious. In fact, in this example that "<100%" figure is probably close to 0% unless it's an enormous toolbox and you didn't look very well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Feb 11, 2020 8:04:47 GMT
Arlon10 Eva Yojimbo "Given it rained, you'd expect to see a wet sidewalk 100% of the time. Given it didn't rain, you'd expect to see a wet sidewalk <100% of the time. Therefore, a wet sidewalk is evidence of rain." First, I apologize for my previous tone, most of the time I'm replying in the minutes between other obligations and can be short and irritable. Can we agree on the following? Sometimes you can prove a negative and sometimes you can't. 1) If the sidewalk is dry, it hasn't rained. The absence of water is proof of no rain. 2) A wet sidewalk is proof of rain, is false. 3) The absence of rain is proof the sidewalk is dry, is false. The problem I have with your statement, a wet sidewalk is evidence for rain, is that a wet sidewalk is evidence for all sources of water until they are ruled out. I am willing to agree that, absence of evidence is not evidence for absence, is situationally true, not universally true. If we can't agree to that then we aren't going to agree ever.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 11, 2020 8:39:00 GMT
Arlon10 Eva Yojimbo "Given it rained, you'd expect to see a wet sidewalk 100% of the time. Given it didn't rain, you'd expect to see a wet sidewalk <100% of the time. Therefore, a wet sidewalk is evidence of rain." First, I apologize for my previous tone, most of the time I'm replying in the minutes between other obligations and can be short and irritable. Can we agree on the following? Sometimes you can prove a negative and sometimes you can't. 1) If the sidewalk is dry, it hasn't rained. The absence of water is proof of no rain. 2) A wet sidewalk is proof of rain, is false. 3) The absence of rain is proof the sidewalk is dry, is false. The problem I have with your statement, a wet sidewalk is evidence for rain, is that a wet sidewalk is evidence for all sources of water until they are ruled out. I am willing to agree that, absence of evidence is not evidence for absence, is situationally true, not universally true. If we can't agree to that then we aren't going to agree ever. Numbers 1 through 3 are correct obviously. It is correct that some negative proofs are possible and some aren't. A wet sidewalk is not proof of rain, but with other evidence it can be. That would require a rather thorough investigation though, as I'm sure you already understand. Beware Eva Yojimbo and his applications of Bayes' Theorem. That theorem doesn't apply as far as he sometimes thinks. What makes a proof impossible is not whether it is "positive" or "negative." What makes a proof impossible is having an infinite scope. Gravity is proved for all cases in our solar system to the distant planets by reason of their orbits. Whether gravity is the same in other galaxies is a much larger scope than we can manage. So gravity might be different in other galaxies. The proof is not possible because the scope is too large.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Feb 11, 2020 18:01:27 GMT
Well, I tried. They are all correct and can be proven mathematically. It's a common example used in both philosophy and math textbooks. I'm out.
|
|
