Book 2 – Page 51

[teratorn]

But it's not Charlie's turn, it's Jetstone's. Charlie's turn has already passed for today, he can't extract Slately in time even if it was otherwise possible for him to do so.

??? Slately just needs to move to any empty hex around the city. Charlie's turn is before GK's so no big problem there.
But I'd rather have Slately play a Bea. I'd like seeing him jumping from the walls.

[Lamech]

While I agree with your main point, you're being a little extreme in that statement. Believing things that are true is generally smart, believing things that aren't is generally not.

It is a little extreme. Usually something being true means you are provided with evidence to believe its true. Which in turn means its a smart thing to believe its true. In the reverse if you believe something is true and it happens to be true, then usually you are being smart; this is because there are usally many false possiblities and one truth, so its unlikely to accidently hit the truth.
But in some cases the information you have is disconected from the truth. Parson concluded that the royals probably wouldn't parley; this was wrong but on the information he had the smart conclusion. Yeah I was being a little extreme, but I couldn't think of a better way to say it. "Something being true or false doesn't nessecarily have anything to do with not believing it being stuipid" maybe?

P.S. The big problem with Slately going Bea is that one all his units are still in the city and would have to fight there way out and two he would be decrypted unless he runs to the portal which might seal his fate.

[Sylvan]

Yeah I was being a little extreme, but I couldn't think of a better way to say it. "Something being true or false doesn't nessecarily have anything to do with not believing it being stuipid" maybe?

I think the general idea we're going for here was posited in David Hume's treatise on human understanding. (I think, it has been ages since I've read this stuff)

Basically he says you can be completely and utterly wrong through a lack of experience, not just a lack of intelligence.

If you could imagine never experiencing temperatures below 32 degrees F for example it would be really hard for you to think of frozen water. Think of trying to tell someone raised on a tropical island about snow, or some other such thing.

I think Hume also gives an example of a guy who has only ever seen black horses. It is factually incorrect if the guy says that all horses are black, but not necessarily logically incorrect since the guy has correct observations but a lack of data (other colors of horses have been seen)

[Foolamancer]

It is factually incorrect if the guy says that all horses are black, but not necessarily logically incorrect since the guy has correct observations but a lack of data (other colors of horses have been seen)

It'd still be logically incorrect. "All horses I have seen are black" does not translate to "all horses are black".

That's why you don't see inductive arguments used much in philosophy. They don't have any way of actually proving that they're right.

[Smoker]

Ah, but remember that Tramennis has already copied Parson's Dwagon Relay trick.

This is an excellent point. There is a relay nearby that Tramennis has been using.

Also: Ending turn is almost a great idea - the problem is, IIRC, that the harvested dwagons wont turn to rations until the start of GK's turn. Since Charlie (and possibly Hagar, depending on their state of alliance) will have a turn first, that will give GK the precious seconds it needs for Wanda to raise the dwagons. Good luck getting Charlie to end turn as soon as its begun.

If it wasn't for that, it might be worth considering.

But as it is, I think Jetstone's best option is to fire everything they have into the airspace, and move into it. They've got the archers and casters to clear the zone, and the flying mounts to take the key units away. Like Ryanroyce suggested: get them to the relay, and flee. Hard.

And dont forget to raze the city on the way out

[Smoker]

??? Slately just needs to move to any empty hex around the city. Charlie's turn is before GK's so no big problem there.
But I'd rather have Slately play a Bea. I'd like seeing him jumping from the walls.

I'd like to see him on the flying carpet.

[teratorn]

P.S. The big problem with Slately going Bea is that one all his units are still in the city and would have to fight there way out and two he would be decrypted unless he runs to the portal which might seal his fate.

Can't Slately just disband his own units? The question is if he needs to do it one unit at a time or if he can do all of them at the same time. An option is giving them an order they can not fulfill, like kissing the back of their own skulls. They should then disband immediately.

[Sylvan]

It is factually incorrect if the guy says that all horses are black, but not necessarily logically incorrect since the guy has correct observations but a lack of data (other colors of horses have been seen)

It'd still be logically incorrect. "All horses I have seen are black" does not translate to "all horses are black".

That's why you don't see inductive arguments used much in philosophy. They don't have any way of actually proving that they're right.

I think we just have a semantics issue with the word logic here. Part of logic is paring down unnecessary information based on previous experience. So, while you are technically correct, what I was really saying is that we draw conclusions based on prior experience and that isn't illogical. Being illogical, or "stupid" if you will, is mostly a matter of ignoring new evidence or failing to take additional variables into consideration.

Stating that you have only ever seen black horses, which makes one of the qualities associated with "horse" in your mind be the quality of "black", might be something that someone, somewhere, has done, and I don't find that sufficient grounds to call them illogical (unless they saw a brown horse and didn't know what the hell to do, or someone sold it to them for 20 times the price of a normal horse or somesuch)

[fehler]

Knowing Parson, he wants to sit in the portal room, wait for the escaping casters, point a stick at them and say "I capture you". Because with the way Erfworld works, they should be immediately captured. I could see Ace try to argue "You can't just point a stick at me and say I'm captured!" and Parson arguing "why not?" Cubbins could say "You have to make an attack with an intent to capture." Parson could say "Like this?" while slapping the casters three stooges style, and the Dittomancer says "Yes! Yes! Like that! Like that!" as shackles appear on their wrists.

[the_tick_rules]

Oh is anyone feeling a brave heart flashback when the king ordered his archers to fire into the mess of everyone fighting?

[Lamech]

Can't Slately just disband his own units? The question is if he needs to do it one unit at a time or if he can do all of them at the same time. An option is giving them an order they can not fulfill, like kissing the back of their own skulls. They should then disband immediately.

Maybe, but Stanley would still end up working for GK. And don't forget until Ossomer falls Jetstone may or may not have a hier.

It'd still be logically incorrect. "All horses I have seen are black" does not translate to "all horses are black".

While technically true, we do make assumptions based on what we have seen. "Energy is conserved" for the longest time (and maybe even now I'm not good with modern physics) was believed on the basis that we had never seen energy not be conserved.

[Angband]

Believing things that are true is generally smart, believing things that aren't is generally not.

There are many situations where you have to act with several different sources of limited information. For instance, when playing Texas Hold'Em Poker. On the last round of betting, you might only have a 10% chance of getting the card you need to win the hand to come up if you decide to call your opponent. This would seem to be a bad bet... unless the pot you would win is more than ten times as large as that last bet. By following your "pot odds" you would, on average, win more money than you would lose.

Of course, your opponent might have been bluffing repeatedly all night, or might have been playing very tight and slow-playing their hands. This would change your perception of whether its a good idea to call their bluff or not. And if you do call, the bluffer can actually have that one single card that can beat you, or the slow-player may have tried bluffing that hand.

What I'm trying to get at is that the idea of "smart play" in poker includes the idea of placing your bets when the most likely outcome is that it will profit. In this case, Tramennis concluded -- based on the evidence he had available -- that Charlie was exaggerating about Parson to try and keep JS and GK from talking, and that the enemy airforce was truly helpless.

This conclusion, it turns out, was wrong, but it doesn't mean that it was stupid to reach that conclusion.

[Turtlewing]

It is factually incorrect if the guy says that all horses are black, but not necessarily logically incorrect since the guy has correct observations but a lack of data (other colors of horses have been seen)

It'd still be logically incorrect. "All horses I have seen are black" does not translate to "all horses are black".

That's why you don't see inductive arguments used much in philosophy. They don't have any way of actually proving that they're right.

yeah, but phylosophy isn't the be all end all of logic. In fact it's probably one of the least useful fields based on logic.

In math and computer science inductive proofs are common, and quite logically sound.

[kagato23]

Can't Slately just disband his own units? The question is if he needs to do it one unit at a time or if he can do all of them at the same time. An option is giving them an order they can not fulfill, like kissing the back of their own skulls. They should then disband immediately.

Maybe, but Stanley would still end up working for GK. And don't forget until Ossomer falls Jetstone may or may not have a hier.

It'd still be logically incorrect. "All horses I have seen are black" does not translate to "all horses are black".

While technically true, we do make assumptions based on what we have seen. "Energy is conserved" for the longest time (and maybe even now I'm not good with modern physics) was believed on the basis that we had never seen energy not be conserved.

A better example would be "the sun is necessary for life on earth." untill submersibles let us reach the bottom of the sea, we assumed that all creatures that existed relied on the sun in some way (if only through the food chain). We have since seen that geothermal vents make life possible for creatures who will never have contact with the sun or anything else that had contact with the sun. But untill that point, it was a widely held assumption which we had no reason to dispute.

[Foolamancer]

It is factually incorrect if the guy says that all horses are black, but not necessarily logically incorrect since the guy has correct observations but a lack of data (other colors of horses have been seen)

It'd still be logically incorrect. "All horses I have seen are black" does not translate to "all horses are black".

That's why you don't see inductive arguments used much in philosophy. They don't have any way of actually proving that they're right.

I think we just have a semantics issue with the word logic here. Part of logic is paring down unnecessary information based on previous experience. So, while you are technically correct, what I was really saying is that we draw conclusions based on prior experience and that isn't illogical. Being illogical, or "stupid" if you will, is mostly a matter of ignoring new evidence or failing to take additional variables into consideration.

I know. I'm just saying that he would still have no logical basis in saying that all horses are black. He would be perfectly justified in saying that all horses he knew of were black, but drawing the conclusion that all horses are black simply because he hadn't seen a non-black horse is illogical. It might be reasonable, but it's not logical. The two are not the same.

It's weak induction.

It is factually incorrect if the guy says that all horses are black, but not necessarily logically incorrect since the guy has correct observations but a lack of data (other colors of horses have been seen)

It'd still be logically incorrect. "All horses I have seen are black" does not translate to "all horses are black".

That's why you don't see inductive arguments used much in philosophy. They don't have any way of actually proving that they're right.

yeah, but phylosophy isn't the be all end all of logic.

I didn't say it was. I was simply using it as an example.

In math and computer science inductive proofs are common, and quite logically sound.

Induction in math and induction in this context are quite different, though. In math, an inductive proof is logically sound because it proves itself to be true for both S and S+1 for any given number S. It is an inductive proof because it looks at every possible number S at the same time and proves itself to be correct for all of them.

As a general rule, in almost any context but math, it is logically impossible to prove something via induction. An inductive argument is simply a collection of examples. This might provide a good reason to believe that it is true much of the time, but it is not proof that it is true all of the time, as there might be a contradictory example that you simply missed. Math has no such "cloaked" instances.

[multilis]

"It'd still be logically incorrect. "All horses I have seen are black" does not translate to "all horses are black"."

It would also be logically incorrect to say there is not a 300 pound sasquach monster from planet mars living in my bathroom, only logical to say "I have not seen a sasquach monster in my bathroom".

Almost everything we claim true/false would be "logically incorrect" by your logic, eg electricity, atoms, speed of sound, e=mc2... all are based on assumptions based on what we normally see.

Sound for example could really have infinite speed and variations are due to the tooth fairy and her gremlin friends giving speeding tickets to fast objects (sonic boom) and playing tricks on your equipment.

...

Humans normally function based on what they have seen, it is rare for humans to invent completely new ways of doing things, usually it is just incremental changes based on seeing what other people do, and even then usually only about 15% of the population does much lateral thinking.

For example: transportation: we currently use 2000+ pound objects (cars) up to 8 feet wide as main way to move average of less than 300 pounds/less than 2 feet wide cargo. Another culture with a complete seperate startup might have invented a completely different way... they might for example use high speed trains/public grid for transportation and tiny enclosed powered wheelchair/bicycle for short distances... at the same time they may in reverse each generate their own electricity rather than rely on a public grid for that.

[Foolamancer]

"It'd still be logically incorrect. "All horses I have seen are black" does not translate to "all horses are black"."

It would also be logically incorrect to say there is not a 300 pound sasquach monster from planet mars living in my bathroom, only logical to say "I have not seen a sasquach monster in my bathroom".

Unless you have a concrete definition of "three-hundred-pound Sasquatch", and the objects in the location defined as your bathroom do not fit that definition.

If you define "Sasquatch" as "giant monkey-thing that is physical and visible", which I don't think would be too much of a stretch, then it's perfectly logical to say that there isn't one in your bathroom (assuming that you've checked). The invisible dragon argument only holds if you're willing to let the other person stretch the definition so far that it has no meaning.

Almost everything we claim true/false would be "logically incorrect" by your logic

No. I don't think you understand my position.

eg electricity, atoms

These are actually proven. The hypothesis is "electricity exists" or "atoms exist". Logically, all that is required to prove that is a single example of electricity or atoms. Both of these are readily available.

speed of sound, e=mc2.

E=mcc and the speed of sound are examples of what we call "strong induction". Please read the link above. You are correct, however, in saying that my position entails that they are not proven to be correct.

They aren't (well, E=mcc is, kind of. See below).

In science, there is always room for doubt. Science relies on induction, which means that it can hardly ever be one hundred percent sure of something. The measurements could always be off, or a fluke. All we have is theories which are very likely to be true. The speed of sound isn't proven. It's estimated. Wery closely estimated, but estimated all the same. On the other hand, we do know that sound has a speed - that's the same thing as the atoms and electricity, above.

E=mcc is somewhat of a special case. It is proven if one assumes relativity to be true. There is still the possibility that relativity is false, though. It's small, but it's there; it might be possible that something else entirely is the correct explanation, and relativity is simply an incorrect theory that happens to give us very close models.

C itself is still not absolutely nailed down, either. Like the speed of sound, we know the general area, but we can't be entirely sure of its exact value simply because we can't ever make instruments that sensitive.

all are based on assumptions based on what we normally see.

Yes.

Sound for example could really have infinite speed and variations are due to the tooth fairy and her gremlin friends giving speeding tickets to fast objects (sonic boom) and playing tricks on your equipment.

It is possible, yes.

This goes back to another discussion that I was having in another thread: something which behaves in all situations exactly as though it has a certain property does have that property.

Sound - and all the universe's other mechanics - behave in all situations exactly as though they are simply autonomous, with no tooth fairy guiding them. Unless you can find a situation which indicates that the tooth fairy is the driving force behind it, the only reasonable conclusion is that she does not exist. It isn't proven that she doesn't exist, but there's no reason to believe it.

[TehPipeman]

Almost everything we claim true/false would be "logically incorrect" by your logic, eg electricity, atoms, speed of sound, e=mc2... all are based on assumptions based on what we normally see.

It might be important to note here that we actually don't claim they are true/false but rather claim that they are valid explanations that could not yet be disproven.
Which is also the reason the explanations scientists find are only called theories.
But i think we are getting a bit off track with this discussion about induction. The main point is that the evidence Tram had, made it seem more likely that Charlie was trying to fool them, than that only talking with parson will get his side killed on-turn. (although they might have been screwed even if they listened to Charlie.)

[multilis]

"then it's perfectly logical to say that there isn't one in your bathroom (assuming that you've checked)."

No it is not perfectly logical if guy who saw only black horses was illogical in saying all horses are black. He *checked*.

As I explained the giant ape is from mars, so obviously he may have some sort of flying saucer. He obviously must know when you are going to the bathroom, and crawls out window into his flying saucer and waits for you to leave, then he goes back in.

Flying saucers burn valuable heavy water, much cheaper and more fun for sasquach to just freeload in someones bathroom when they aren't looking... he probably is also stealing heavy water out of your toilet bowl, using your electricity to power his high tech portable heavy water distiller.

....

"explanations scientists find are only called theories." Yet treat them as facts in practice. Then a bright scientist like Einstein comes and upends what is known possible. Parson is like that bright scientist for Erfworld, and he already found one way to make a nuke. (Uncroak volcano)

[Foolamancer]

"then it's perfectly logical to say that there isn't one in your bathroom (assuming that you've checked)."

No it is not perfectly logical if guy who saw only black horses was illogical in saying all horses are black. He *checked*.

No, he didn't. He is making a claim about all horses, not just the horses that he has seen.

As I explained the giant ape is from mars, so obviously he may have some sort of flying saucer. He obviously must know when you are going to the bathroom, and crawls out window into his flying saucer and waits for you to leave, then he goes back in.

Again, if you're going to stretch the definition like that, then no, you can't disprove it. But unless this is actually something that you care to prove or disprove, there's no point in doing so.

"explanations scientists find are only called theories." Yet treat them as facts in practice.

Yep. Because they have no reason to do otherwise. Induction works fine for what it's meant to do. But what it's meant to do is to provide a basis for further reasoning, not to absolutely prove something.