sci.logic Google Group

Re: What are deliberately flawed & fallacious Arguments? Sophistry!

2010-03-19T11:56:49Z

A starting point is if they are being paid to say whatever it is they are
saying. In fact sophistry might be taken as an initial given in this case
since logic is secondary to personal gain and employment.
For instance: "We fight them over there so we do not have to fight them
here" is severely flawed commercial logic.

Re: Understanding

2010-03-19T11:41:42Z

Oh, yes, of course. Just three simple statements, with no inferences
intended.
Of course you did.

Re: Understanding

2010-03-19T09:56:52Z

There is an article available online from Jeremy Avigad "Understanding
proofs" that might interest you:
[link]

Re: What are deliberately flawed & fallacious Arguments? Sophistry!

2010-03-19T09:11:29Z

What is the nature of fascism anyway? I think since you are smarter
than me, it means you can 'bully' me 'intellectually'. Smart people
can make stupid people look bad...like they are dumb or something. It
is humiliating to be a smaller ape; badgered and oppressed by the
bigger apes...those 'smarter'. Why are you so smart anyway? Was it

Re: BEAUTIFUL DEAD SCIENCE

2010-03-19T07:18:55Z

The glorious successes of beautiful dead science:
[link]
"In 1960, GR passed its first big test in a lab, here on Earth; the
Pound-Rebka experiment. And over the nine decades since its
publication, GR has passed test after test after test..."

Re: What are deliberately flawed & fallacious Arguments? Sophistry!

2010-03-19T06:52:37Z

should a lawyer be a sophist then?
Or declare that his client is guilty?
When Daniel Webster fought for Jabaz Stone's soul...well, one already
knows that the devil has no scrupels and will cheat with everything he
has. Intellectuals with 'big brains' act as mental fascists to us
menial folk. So...we gotsta win somehow. I mean, we can't let the

Re: Understanding

2010-03-19T06:51:33Z

Only a Plutonium fan, which I'm not, would know.
So what? I didn't say they did.
I made three declarative statements.
(Note: I am not expressing an opinion on whether you hallucinated
a sillygism or not, since the ladder term is Jabberwocky.)

Re: simplifying the 2D Conjecture Re: maximum tiler = maximum (Eucl% + Ellipt% + Hyperb%) #529 Correcting Math

2010-03-19T05:44:39Z

Now I have a preliminary result, which is highly fallible, so do not
go away
with any certainty. I say fallible because I am picturing it in my
head and
a rough pen and paper sketch.
If I use the 10-Model where 9.9 is the last and largest finite number
and where
the unit equilateral triangles are thus1.5 sides would give me a 9

Re: Understanding

2010-03-19T04:07:24Z

yasu wrote:
How would you know a machine can't learn all about GIT or
the like by itself?

Re: Understanding

2010-03-19T03:17:48Z

Be careful what you wish for.
A computer that understands things might figure out
humans are a danger to it. I once wrote a short
story about a computer program that learns
to lie to protect its own existence.
What we call "intelligence" includes a lot of self interest.
Russell
- 2 many 2 count

Come and see this

2010-03-19T02:45:56Z

good day friend,my name is wan and i work at home.here is my office>>
[link].
hope you will find it ease to accept me.

What are deliberately flawed & fallacious Arguments? Sophistry!

2010-03-19T01:10:37Z

An argument which appears to be quite valid but is in reality invalid
is one which suffers from any of a number of fallacies or other flaws.
We should expect to see this sort of thing because most people do not
reason very well and no one reasons perfectly. Fallacious arguments,
then, are natural - but what is not so natural is to offer fallacious

Re: Are there objects or just patterns of activity?

2010-03-19T00:54:13Z

The problem is that "same", like many words has more than one
definition, if by definition you mean the meaning as used in speech
and writing. So, to define "same" we need to list all the usages of
"same".
Having done that I suspect we will be no further ahead; there are so
many contradictory and different but overlapping meanings for it that

Re: Understanding

2010-03-19T00:01:44Z

Thank you all, after reading your responses, I thought more about
"understanding" and I have just written this at a cafe in Tokyo. I
wonder what you think about this...
============================== ==
Understanding cannot be, at least at the moment, described in an
axiomatic theory, which is the reason computers cannot "understand"

Re: Understanding

2010-03-18T18:34:46Z

Still gets used a bit in the more general sense in the philosophical
literature (at least in UK) eg Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics, 1997
has
"ostension. Pointing out.
An ostensive definition is one which points to individual instances: ..."