• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Help with a logic problem?

"... and it went... wherever I.... did go!"

(10 points await you for the source)
 
Abdul Alhazred said:
Wouldn't a mathematical proof by contradiction be proving a negative?
Click to expand...
Could you provide an example? I don't mean to be dense, but when I referred to proofs, I was referring to logical proofs. Mathematics has never been my strong suit, so I am unable to come up with a proof such as you ask about off the top of my head...
 
Garrette said:
Warning: Unresearched ramblings of a non-philosopher and poorly educated man follow:

...snip...

Similarly, "psi" could be disproven/falsified (insofar as anything outside mathematics can be) if its properties were specifically listed.

Just my two dinar.
Click to expand...

I agree with your stance on this. It's the main reason why I always try to ask what a person means when they use the term "psi". Unfortunately in my experience very few people putting forward a belief in "psi" are willing to define what they mean which means that it isn't possible to debate with them.
 
Hazelip said:
Could you provide an example? I don't mean to be dense, but when I referred to proofs, I was referring to logical proofs. Mathematics has never been my strong suit, so I am unable to come up with a proof such as you ask about off the top of my head...
Click to expand...

Well, just off the top of my head: Prove that there are no three consecutive integers that add up to 100.

Start by assuming that they exist. Call the middle one x.

(x - 1) + (x) + (x + 1) = 100
3x = 100, which violates the assumption that x is an integer.

Negative proved.
 
Garrette said:
Similarly, "psi" could be disproven/falsified (insofar as anything outside mathematics can be) if its properties were specifically listed.

[/B]
Click to expand...

Psi is only defined negatively. Anomalous cognition simply means obtaining information where normal sensory channels have been eliminated. One can disprove it by simply showing that some ostensibly psi phenomena in fact were communicated using such normal sensory channels.

This generally has been a failure.
 
Re: Re: Re: Help with a logic problem?

Oleron said:


Perhaps the question is better asked 'Why did you enter the bedroom? To find out if there is a blue whale there?'

OK so what if I said I saw a blue whale in your bedroom, you go and check (finding no whale) and tell me 'There is no whale in my bedroom'.

I then say 'Well it was definitely there, I'm convinced of it. Just because you can't see it right now doesn't mean it didn't happen.'

No matter how much you tell me otherwise I still hold my belief, when, in reality, I am either mad, mistaken or a hoaxer.
Now, according to some, we have real anecdotal evidence for the blue whale/bedroom hypothesis and therefore the claim should not be discounted.
I've lost count of the number of times I have heard similar arguments from believers.
Click to expand...


Well I have no idea what arguments these might be. Could you give an example where I have ever made a similar argument?
 
Darat said:


I agree with your stance on this. It's the main reason why I always try to ask what a person means when they use the term "psi". Unfortunately in my experience very few people putting forward a belief in "psi" are willing to define what they mean which means that it isn't possible to debate with them.
Click to expand...

See my definition above. BTW psi refers to anomalous perturbation (psychokinesis) as well as anomalous cognition (esp). But they both are only defined negatively ie nothing positive is said about them.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Help with a logic problem?

Interesting Ian said:


Well I have no idea what arguments these might be. Could you give an example where I have ever made a similar argument?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that there was an attack on you here. I think there was merely an attempt to demonstrate how difficult it can be to obtain objective evidence of things particularly when one party is intransigent.

You are sooooo touchy sheesh!
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Help with a logic problem?

The Don said:

I'm not sure that there was an attack on you here. I think there was merely an attempt to demonstrate how difficult it can be to obtain objective evidence of things particularly when one party is intransigent.

You are sooooo touchy sheesh!
Click to expand...

True. That is exactly what I was trying to demonstrate.
 
Originally posted by Interesting Ian:

Psi is only defined negatively. Anomalous cognition simply means obtaining information where normal sensory channels have been eliminated. One can disprove it by simply showing that some ostensibly psi phenomena in fact were communicated using such normal sensory channels.
Click to expand...

For you, perhaps, it is only defined negatively. I don't think everyone agrees with you.

But I'll address your contention. I suggest that it's not just the elimination of normal sensory information that is necessary but also the accounting for probability (or statistics; someone else will know the proper terminology usage).

Further, according to this definition, you're simply saying it's "The Psi of the Gaps." It apparently is a religion to you.
 
Garrette said:


For you, perhaps, it is only defined negatively. I don't think everyone agrees with you.
Click to expand...


Then they are wrong.

But I'll address your contention. I suggest that it's not just the elimination of normal sensory information that is necessary but also the accounting for probability (or statistics; someone else will know the proper terminology usage).
Click to expand...

I said obtaining information. By definition that rules out chance.

Further, according to this definition, you're simply saying it's "The Psi of the Gaps." It apparently is a religion to you.
Click to expand...

Can't help that. That's how it's defined.
 
Abdul Alhazred said:
Well, just off the top of my head: Prove that there are no three consecutive integers that add up to 100.

Start by assuming that they exist. Call the middle one x.

(x - 1) + (x) + (x + 1) = 100
3x = 100, which violates the assumption that x is an integer.

Negative proved.
Click to expand...
Um...isn't everthing on the right side of the = nothing more than a conclusion?
 
Hazelip said:
Um...isn't everthing on the right side of the = nothing more than a conclusion?
Click to expand...

Not a fully rigorous proof. The rules of arithmetic and algebra are assumed as axioms.

To continue more rigorously:
3x = 100
x = 33 1/3

and of course 32 1/3 + 33 1/3 + 34 1/3 = 100
but those are not integers.

So I have proven that no three consecutive integers add to 100.
 
Abdul, you have not proven a negative. You have provided evidence of everything but a lack of three consecutive integers producing a sum of 100. You're working backwards from your conclusion.

A conclusion can be reached in light of evidence. If there is no evidence, after repeated accurate (we are talking math here...) attempts to yield a particular result, it is then and only then reasonable to conclude that the opposite of what you have been able to produce does not exist.

In other words, you can prove that three consecutive integers yield a result other than 100 all day and night. After checking your work, and your results, you may then reasonably conclude that there are no three consecutive integers that yield a value of 100. That is a conclusion, it is based on evidence, it is not evidence in and of itself.
 
Hazelip said:
That is not a proof. That is a conclusion. A proof can only establish the existence of the integers 27 and 28. Once proven, it is then a logical conclusion that there is not an integer between the two.

Conclusions can be negative. Conclusions are different from proof.
Click to expand...

OK. What precisely is the is the difference between "conclusion" and "proof"?

In mathematics they are the same.
 
Hazelip said:
Abdul, you have not proven a negative. You have provided evidence of everything but a lack of three consecutive integers producing a sum of 100. You're working backwards from your conclusion.
Click to expand...

In mathematics, this is known as proof. Working backwards is legitimate. I do not understand what you mean by proof.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom