Prev: "The Universe"
Next: ANUSHKA HOT PICTURES
From: Immortalist on 1 Aug 2010 01:38
On Jul 31, 5:49 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Aug 1, 7:40 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Suppose that you are confronted with a barrel full of apples some of
> > which are rotten and others of which are not. Usually there will be
> > some sign or mark by which you can tell the rotten apples from the
> > good ones. The rotten apples will be brown of soft, or they will have
> > some other visible defect by which you can detect their condition. On
> > the other hand, the good apples will be firm,red, and otherwise appear
> > desirable. We suppose we can tell the difference between a good apple
> > and a rotten one because we have signs to guide us.
>
> > However, suppose we are confronted with a barrel of apples that are
> > quite indistinguishable in appearance, though some of the apples are
> > rotten at the core. We are now presented with an apple from this
> > barrel and prohibited from cutting it open. In this predicament, if
> > someone should ask us whether the apple is rotten or good, the only
> > thing to reply is, "I don't know" We might add, "There is no way to
> > tell."
>
> > ...when a belief [about the core issue] is true, this is more a matter
> > of good luck than good sense. Of course, no belief that turns out to
> > be true as a matter of luck can reasonably be counted as knowledge.
>
> What is your point?

Oh just trying to understand hard problems and try and figure out ways
to determine when one is such.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paradoxes
From: Terrys on 1 Aug 2010 04:24
On Aug 1, 2:53 pm, Jim Burns <burns...(a)osu.edu> wrote:
> Immortalist wrote:
> > Suppose that you are confronted with a barrel full of apples some of
> > which are rotten and others of which are not. Usually there will be


> We might add "There is no way to tell", but, if we did add that,
> we would be wrong. You have been given a number of suggestions
> as to how you might tell. My own idea is to store the apples

The mark of someone who knows his field is that he could explain it to
an intelligent six year old.
Thanks for that lucid post. Have fun trying to explain it to the
Spirit^W^W `immortalist'.
Most of us gave up years ago:-(
From: Acme Prognostics on 2 Aug 2010 04:44

Immortalist <reanimater_2000(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jul 31, 2:50=A0pm, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi> wrote:
>> Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> writes:
>>>Do you miss John Jones or something? Me to.
>>
>> Well, no, I don't. I was, in effect, just noting that your tedious
>> little essays have at best a very tenuous connection to logic as a
>> technical field.
>
>I am doing much reading on "research methodology" which is based
>mainly upon inductive logic, is that a subject for sci.logic. If you
>have read Copi's Introduction to Logic as many years as I have in its
>various editions, when the symbolic logic comes to an end, the final
>third of the book is about inductive logic, analogy, probability and
>theoretical aspects of the scientific method. I just figured that
>anything in that book is acceptable especially in sci.logic. From you
>now I get the impression that when in here we should focus upon
>symbolic logic.

I currently read sci.logic and would value posts on any logic
topic. I specialize in real-world logic as opposed to theory,
lately focused on that which is useful in real life.

This includes the logic you mention in the quoted paragraph.
Besides the logic of science (probability), the logic of
cooperative dialog debate (et al) is especially interesting
because it is the microcosm of RW logic performance.

It is important to observe the distinction between rules v.
concepts for applying the rules. The most interesting concepts
are portable across non-adjacent fields. The plainer the
language, the more portable, though field-specific examples
are required for demonstration and clear explanation.

So, while I'm not interested in the philosophical aspects of your
"apples in barrels" problem per se, I would be interested in
concepts for applying logic rules to decisions about apples
in barrels, especially concepts which are portable across many
logicky subjects - exactly as you have done in this post, and its
successors more or less.
From: Day Brown on 6 Aug 2010 16:28
On 08/05/2010 02:34 PM, LifeBinge wrote:
> how about a magical growth formula in which revitalizes the apples,
> making them fresh and delicous like the others?
> There will always be those who have an easier way to distiguish the
> differences between the apples..
Not far off. There's a lotta neurological data and brain chemistry to
show the damage to childhood mental development by raising kids on sugar
cereals, junk food, and soda.

I was born on a farm in 1939. We fed the horses oats cause we wanted
strong smart horses. We fed the pigs corn cause we wanted lotsa bacon
and nobody wants a smart pig.

If what I wanted was stupid kids, I'd raise them on soulfood. We were
raised on oatmeal.

There are certain hormone profiles that produce high rates of drug
abuse, alcoholism, and violence. Seratonin and dopamine supplements
before puberty would prolly help, but nobody does the experiment cause
they think all gene pools are alike.
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: "The Universe"
Next: ANUSHKA HOT PICTURES