teratorn wrote:People are confusing things. Scientific theories assume a set of postulates and a given set of equations.
They are always «true» the question being if they fit the data or not.
But what does this have to do with Erfworld?
HerbieRai wrote:To bring what foolamancer is saying to the above black horse statment:
"all horses are black" not logical statement because he does not know all horses in existance
"there are black horses" logical statement
I would debate on if the first is valid for philosophy, since philosophy is supposed to think of outside the box type ideas and then have science and logic to prove or disprove the idea. (at least by my definitions)
Now to bring this disscussion back to Trem, I don't think his decisions were stupid. Charlie isn't nessecarly a trustworthy person, and although we the readers know he told him the truth, Trem doesn't. Trem did draw a valid conclusion from Charlies information, that Charlie wanted Jetstone to destroy the fliers asap. Now, while Charlie is not an enemy, he is far from ally. I'm sure Trem knows about all the double crossing Charlie did in TBFGK, since those finances would be seen back in the capitol. Trem then had to decide which to deal with: Charlie, and unkown power located somewhere secret who is acting out of character (services for free), or GK, a force that he has in a bind (or so he thought) and has leverage with.
multilis wrote:"No, he didn't. He is making a claim about all horses, not just the horses that he has seen."
Yes, and similar with sasquash, a claim of only what is *seen* in your bathroom at most a few hours a day, is extending to always true for your bathroom.
multilis wrote:"No, it isn't. You asked if it was possible to prove that Sasquatch was not in your bathroom, not if it was possible to prove that Sasquatch has never and will never be in your bathroom. The two are very different questions."
No, I said prove Sasquash doesn't "live" in your bathroom. You live in your house but not always there.
The point related to erfworld is this: we should not be so critical to fault Erfworlders for not expected what they have never seen. It takes time for us humans to adapt, to think outside the box, same with them.
Oberon wrote:No, sorry. Tram has been positioned as a smart diplomat, and we have yet to see any smart diplomacy out of him.
First off, being told a truth and not believing it is stupidity.
[/quote]Secondly, there is much to debate about a position that Tram could not have changed his circumstances regardless of accepting parley or not. I believe that Tram could have made a huge difference if he had insisted on speaking to Parson and had been competent in relaying his desire for a Jetstone/GK alliance. You can disagree, it's a free Erf.
Foolamancer wrote:E=mcc is somewhat of a special case. It is proven if one assumes relativity to be true.
C itself is still not absolutely nailed down, either.
Foolamancer wrote:Being sound means that it is logical or reasonable to say that the conclusion follows from the premises. Being true requires both that the argument is sound and that it is valid (that its premises are true).
multilis wrote:Sasquash uses deoderant and knows how to use and flush a primitive device like a toilet. He comes from mars in a flying saucer, you keep thinking him a savage animal when he is more civilized then you.
barawn wrote:Foolamancer wrote:E=mcc is somewhat of a special case. It is proven if one assumes relativity to be true.
It's actually not "proven" or "disproven" at all. It's the definition of rest energy, that's all.
But E=mc^2 is a definition, not a theory. It's like Newton's second law, F=ma - it's not a theory, it's the definition of force.
C itself is still not absolutely nailed down, either.
The speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second. Exactly. Precisely. To a bajillion zeroes (or however many you want to stick on). It was defined to be that in 1983 - because in order to measure the speed of light, you need to know what a meter is, and what a second is.
Back in the late 1970s/early 1980s, they figured out a way to measure the speed of light (via laser interferometry) so precisely that the error in the measurement came virtually entirely from the definition of the meter.
Anyway, this is all secondary, of course. But in science, there are only a few postulates that create a theory, and everything else follows from there - it's not the results (like E=mc^2) that are the theory. Those provide things to test. The theory consists of the postulates, like special relativity's "the speed of light is a universal constant in all frames."
teratorn wrote:Foolamancer wrote:Being sound means that it is logical or reasonable to say that the conclusion follows from the premises. Being true requires both that the argument is sound and that it is valid (that its premises are true).
You lost me there. Premises are postulates, they are imposed. What can be true or false is if they
describe observations in our universe or not. A theory will describe a universe, it simply may not
The key criteria is falsifiability, for a theory to be considered scientific it must make predictions
that might be contradicted by observations in our universe. If that happens the theory is discarded as not
fitting the data (or doing so only for a given set of problems).
This thing from the martian in the toiled is not scientific since you can not think of an experiment
that could falsify it as a description of our universe.
kreszantas wrote:And on that not I just noticed how Ossomer's forlorn look is one of relief, It should have been mentioned that we still don't know for certain that if Wanda dies, the decrypted return to dust, is there a real cannon to back that up yet or are we still debating this?
Foolamancer wrote:I've said this before. No, there is no way to disprove this if you're going to give the thing capabilities like that. What's your point?
How about instead of satquach just a normal tresspasser living in your house? And this could easily by watching your bathroom for long enough for it to no longer qualify as "living in the bathroom", to disprove it and you could prove it by the tresspasser screwing up.Foolamancer wrote:I've said this before. No, there is no way to disprove this if you're going to give the thing capabilities like that. What's your point?
Kyrt wrote:Again....without Parsons game breaking ploy....would Ossomer have connected him to Parson as Tram requested?
Unless Ossomer gives some sort of recommendation there is no reason for Parson to be more likely to talk to Tram simply because he got Ossomer to play messenger boy. On the other hand if Ossomer says Tram is being insulting or tried to get him to turn Parson will be less likely to take the call and more likely to conclude the parley was in bad faith.Kyrt wrote:He did ask to speak to Parson. He wasn't looking for an Alliance. The disagreement lies in whether or not he should have simply called Parson out of the blue and without giving Parson any reason to accept his call or believe him trust that Parson would talk to him instead of going through Ossomer and gettign Parson to accept a call from his own Warlord.
Squishalot wrote:Foolamancer wrote:I've said this before. No, there is no way to disprove this if you're going to give the thing capabilities like that. What's your point?
Consider that if a horse is defined as 'a black animal that has four legs and looks like <insert picture of horse here>', then it's reasonable to assume that all horses are black.
We label black cows Angus' and brown cows Herefords (simplification). Does that mean all Angus cows are black? Yes!
What we define to ourselves plays a very powerful role in the way we think. Erfworlders define movement as only being allowed on their turn, no movement of attackers through city zones, etc. This limits their ability to think outside that definitional framework. It's not an entirely illogical view, because such actions would have been tested, much in the same way that Jillian charged into the hex boundary whilst chasing Stanley and Jack. The constant reinforcement of their definition would suggest that it's an altogether logical conclusion to make, if incorrect.
We might still be wrong about E=mcc, it's just a definition that happens to fit our understanding of the universe. Likewise with Erfworlders - their definitions just happen to fit their understanding of their universe.
How about instead of satquach just a normal tresspasser living in your house? And this could easily by watching your bathroom for long enough for it to no longer qualify as "living in the bathroom", to disprove it and you could prove it by the tresspasser screwing up.
And on horses, I mean sure one could argue that if every horse you have ever seen has been black and you have travelled all over, captured a number of horses randomly, but all the ones you have seen where black you don't have proof that horses are black. But when you get to that point the chance of shizophrenia messing with your perceptions is above the chance you just happened to not see a non-black horse. When people talk about "proof" they discount things with tiny chances such as schizophrenia. Also note people say things like "humans have two legs each" even if its really only true 99% of the time. So if you see enough horses and all of them are black and you have good sampling its correct to say "I have proof all horses are black" the way proof is used in human society. Actual 100% proof has issues 'cause schizophrenia and co. (It also disrputs logic so no proving stuff with math either.)
Foolamancer wrote:Logical proof requires more. It requires valid supporting premises and a conclusion which logically follows. This is actually very rare, but we don't need it to operate on a day-to-day basis, so it doesn't matter.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 2 guests