OT: What the heck do they teach in college??

I think he's a Wickenburg AZ cowboy. That was his home the last I heard - has a ranch out there. Kinda makes me proud, partner! ;-)

Mike

Reply to
Michael Pardee
Loading thread data ...

"Michael Pardee" wrote

There is a miscommunication here.

Intelligent Design theory claims an "intelligent" entity originated (x, y, z) on earth. If you support ID theory, then you are making the same claim.

The theory of evolution contains itself to an explanation of the scientific evidence before it. It of course is silent on the topic of gods.

No scientific theory will purport to explain a lack of evidence. This lack of evidence is what we have in the case of god.

Michael, if you want to claim there is no "intelligent designer" in the concepts of "Intelligent Design," then it's your right to be nonsensical. But if you insist on being nonsensical, then we cannot have a rational discussion.

I will repeat that, if you have faith there may be a god, then I certainly can't disprove it. But since you also have no scientific evidence to prove it, it denotes a religious position, not a scientific one.

We can quibble about the meaning of "scientific evidence," but then you're arguing that the same quibbling be done in science classes. Don't kids have enough to learn in science classes already?

Leave these subjects to social studies/philosopy/theology classes.

(I do not suppose, though, that one position is superior to the other. Religion has value to many people. So does science.)

What you are struggling to say is that a scientific theory is not a mathematical theorem.

But in fact science (including scientific theories) and rational discourse could not proceed without deductive reasoning (among other things).

Likewise an inductive argument could not proceed without the tools of deductive reasoning. (An inductive argument's main structure is different from a deductive argument, but it uses the tools of deductive reasoning in part to formulate it.)

Deductive reasoning is ubiquitous. Science could absolutely not proceed without it. A rational discussion could not proceed without it.

Science also cannot proceed without inductive reasoning.

I am confident that you have seen and done many, many analyses that rely on deductive reasoning.

The courts, accident or whatever investigations, use deductive reasoning often.

Supreme Court opinions by and large are an overdose of deductive reasoning.

Probabilistic predictions of course also rely heavily on deductive reasoning.

Here's an easy example of how people use deductive reasoning: All babies that have testicles are said to be boys. This baby has testicles. This baby is said to be a boy.

Here's an easy example of how we use deductive reasoning at alt.autos.honda:

Early 1990s Hondas that fail to start only under x, y, z, conditions most likely have a, b, c wrong with them. Ten of the posts to alt.autos.honda this summer concerned early 1990s Hondas failing to start under x, y, z conditions. Most had a, b, or c wrong with them.

Or, if you prefer, the main relay problem is nearly as ubiquitous as deductive reasoning. ;-)

So of course deductive arguments can and do use probabilities often.

Given the low standards for education in this country, I suppose I should not be surprised that you do not see how much deductive reasoning is used in the above example. (There is some inductive reasoning, too, but the argument above could not succeed without also using principles of deduction.)

That argument itself is deductive.

snip, because Usenet banter about "quantum theory" occurs as often as examples of Godwin's law. Trite. Nothing new. Waxing philosophical about quantum theory on Usenet is an exercise in self-indulgence and does not involve discovery.

You want profundities? Go read most anything but Usenet.

Reply to
Elle

Miscommunication on my part - my brain went for a long wander. Of course you are right.

Mike

Reply to
Michael Pardee

Automatically equating reliieon with god(s) is a mistake in the first place anyway. Belief in a god or deity does not mean one is religious, and being religious CERTAINLY doesn't require a god(s) or deity(ies). For some, science itself is elevated to a religion.

Reply to
Matt Ion

DanQ was suckered into it by a que-card.

It doesn't work. Teachers "know" it all. I had that problem when I was a kid and my son did too. Idiot teachers are teaching *way* beyond their skills. ...pretty bad when those skills are supposed to include spelling (me? no, I'm not a teacher, but was tought to speel by 'em).

Reply to
keith

IN

Reply to
keith

On another planet? I had lotsa teachers like that. I'm only a couple of years older than you too. ;-)

She wuz wrong. It's amazing how much a bad teacher can screw you up, particularly a trusted one.

Reply to
keith

I had a krappy tuping teechur too.

Reply to
keith

----- Original Message ----- From: "Elle" Newsgroups: misc.consumers,alt.autos.honda Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 5:39 PM Subject: Re: OT: What the heck do they teach in college??

Exactly as intelligent design does - the concept does not require a god. It only requires an intelligence, the nature of which may not be knowable.

Not nonsensical at all. I also scoff at Daniken's ideas, but it demonstrates that religion is not implied by ID.

My objection is to using evolutionary theory to explain the existence of humans capable of deep abstract thought. There is no theoretical mechanism for it, and the idea that such a radical and inexplicable change would occur worldwide over the course of a few thousand generations as a result of natural selection is more nonsensical than believing we are transplanted from... wherever it was Daniken said we came from. My position does not involve a god, but the likelihood of an undetermined intelligent influence based on preliminary indications. I don't know what religion you want to call that. However, religions that exclude the possibility of gods are defined as atheist. You are welcome to your religious beliefs, even though you insist the question of "how we got here" fit that religion by excluding the possibility of a god.

I think we are not on the same page there. I do not claim any scientific evidence, but rather that the source of our mental abilities is still a mystery. It is merely hard to avoid the conclusion it is from a greater intelligence, in keeping with a principle recognized by the Artificial Intelligence (AI) devotees: No intelligence can create a greater intelligence.

I don't think you are talking about deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning can only fill in within the perimeter of our knowledge and can never expand it. It is only a way of rearranging what we already accept as fact; it is logical algebra.

No - never, for the reasons I gave. I doubt you have ever seen them outside formal proofs, because deduction requires predetermined certainty. Virtually all of what is called deduction (especially by Sherlock Holmes) is induction.

Can you give an example? I can't think of one at all, or why we would go to the Supreme Court for deduction. I believe the usual goal is "interpretation."

Not deductive reasoning (logic), but reckoning. Given the initial location, speed and time, the present location can be deduced, with an error budget. It follows the deductive models, in that the inputs are "given," but it is hardly logic.

That is a good example. It also illustrates the triviality of deduction.

It is also logically inaccurate, since any number of the ten posts may have been from the exception group. Changing it to "Most _probably_ had a, b, or c wrong with them" fixes it.

An easy way to categorize deduction and induction is that if a computer can work out the logic, it is deductive. It takes some pretty sophisticated AI to break into the world of induction.

Probabilities must be worked into all logic very carefully. Your Honda example illustrates that by the loss of the word "probably." Notice that the "probability" must entirely resolved in the conclusion, so that it is only another fact.

No - there is no deduction in that report beyond the unspeakably trivial. Deduction in professional reports is best left to the reader unless it is specifically required to support the next (inductive) argument. Including deductive conclusions except as a bridge makes the text tedious and insulting to the reader, much as the "boy definition" example above would. It's a matter of professional style and respect for the reader's intelligence. Induction is almost always needed to make sense of raw data - that's why it is called "analysis."

I notice you have still not given your qualifications. I am still an engineer. But I wonder why you deduced (and that part *is* structured as deduction) "the low standards for education in this country" mandate my incompetence to do the job I'm trained for and have practiced for 30 years. Are all engineers unqualified (as you seem to assert)? The conclusion does not seem to follow from the postulate, unless you have some specific knowledge of my qualifications that you left unstated. Is your education from outside "this country" or do you exhibit the same incompetence?

The conclusion is "the world has fewer certainties than it did even a half century ago," but it drew directly from what postulates (as deduction must)? That paragraph had virtually no logic in it; just free argument. But I'm glad you were able to identify my writing as inaccurate - I must have been using a foreign character set that caused me to miss a lot ;-). I await the release of the redacted (syn: edited) text.

Where did you get your training in logic, anyway? Your qualifications, please.

Mike

Reply to
Michael Pardee

Right - there are a lot of atheist religions.

Mike

Reply to
Michael Pardee

"Michael Pardee" wrote

You do not know what a deductive argument is. You should google.

Every action you take, from posting to this newsgroup to getting up in the morning, relies on deductive logic. That is, one works constantly from one or another general premises and applies these to specific situations, to come to a specific conclusion (or decision about what to do next). We _do_ things because we assume this or that consequence (in an if-then sequence), and then we use deductive logic to work from those generalized assumptions and so make our decisions, from avoiding touching obviously hot stoves to being nice to little old ladies to using appropriately descriptive language to get help diagnosing one's Honda. Rational people try to get what they want, and the only way to do this is through a largely deductive process: If I don't touch anything hot, I won't get hurt. This stove is hot, so I won't touch it. Therefore, I won't get hurt. If people are nice to each other, then we'll all get along better. Here's a little old lady (an "other"). I'll be nice to her, and therefore, we'll all get along better. (Not guaranteed, since the premise makes an assumption, but the reasoning is nonetheless deductive.) If I describe a problem I'm having as precisely as possible, then someone is more likely to diagnose it. Yada.

Your very participation in this forum relies on the assumption--the premise--that we exist. We can't prove we exist, but we do assume it. So we tarry over work and play.

I don't expect you to get this. You might, but I don't expect it. You need to read more on logic, argument, philosophy, epistemology. Maybe grow old around smart people. Truly smart people.

Of course, you'll still give good advice on Hondas, even if you don't know you're using mostly deductive logic to do so(!) ;-)

My "logic training" derives from dinner conversation (polemics, really) with my family as a youngster; skill in mathematics (through two masters degrees in engineering along with three licenses/certifications in same, so I'm way beyond calculus in my abilities); a course in philosophy that really polished my understanding of epistemology via reading and discussion of the ancient Greek philosophers but also more modern ones such as Bertrand Russell, at what some would call a "high-falutin'" college where the level of discussion was high; instructor of geometry for a few terms more recently for fun; years working as an engineer, particularly in naval nuclear engineering; extensive reading and study in U.S. law for a few decades.

None of that is meant to intimidate or, in the alternative, underwhelm. I don't credit "qualifications." I credit how a person addresses the argument at hand.

Reply to
Elle

We'd be a lot better off if we would just stop after the word "mystery" and simply admit we don't know. The fact that we don't know the answer implies nothing about what the answer might be. Anything following that is guesswork, to which we're all entitled, but which is meaningless in the absence of a testable hypothesis.

Reply to
Steve

but where was he raised?

Reply to
AllEmailDeletedImmediately

heading

maybe it's some sort of regional thing.

Reply to
AllEmailDeletedImmediately

unacceptable).

typing has nothing to do with it. the letters are on the keyboard :)

Reply to
AllEmailDeletedImmediately

I'll go for that. It sounds better than stumbling into each other in the darkness.

Mike

Reply to
Michael Pardee

I'll stick with the education I paid for, thanks. The internet is a good source of information but a better source for misinformation. Wikipedia has a fairly decent dictionary but the encyclopedia should bill itself as one of the largest sources of completely unvetted information on the 'net. Look up a subject you have in-depth knowledge of and you will see what I mean.

At least that isn't a deduction, since you came to your conclusion without any data. My "not so smart" associates collectively manage the IS infrastructure for a Fortune 500 company. AFAIK only one has nuclear engineering background (he's currently in charge of the voice-over-IP project), and the only actual "rocket scientist" we had has moved on, but we aren't as dumb as you suggest. Some of us can tie our own shoes. I also grew up with my older brother, who was valedictorian of his high school class a couple weeks after turning 16 (that beats me - I was almost 17 when I graduated and was only interviewed as a valedictory candidate). You also seem to assume I am unintelligent because I don't subscribe to your preconceived notions or because I fail to discard my formal education in favor of an education on the cyberstreets. I am one of those people who would rather lose my driver's license than my library card; public libraries often have more down-to-earth textbooks than college courses use. It may be a decade or more since my refresher foray into logic and statistics, but not much had changed.

But if you want, we could have some (geeky) fun with this. I propose a test.

36 years ago I encountered a question on the high school physics final that I couldn't answer, and I haven't found anybody who could answer it - including two physics professors who had no off-the-cuff answer. The test was one of those standardized ones and the original question had numerical values to reach a numerical answer, but I've forgotten the numbers and I'm only looking for the method. If you or your mates can come up with the solution, I will revere you as gods... er, really smart people. If not, ye be mere mortals. Here it is, with variables instead of values: ================ A pile driver is driving a pile into the earth. The pile has mass of P, the driver has mass of D, and the driver is lifted H height above the pile top with each stroke. The collision between the driver and the pile is inelastic. How far is the pile driven with each stroke? ================ The universal complaint is "there is no information about the soil resistance." That is exactly correct - the original question said nothing about the soil. The only clue we have is that the collision between driver and pile is inelastic. I am not certain the solution is not parametric (in spite of the original choices being numeric), but there is obviously a solution. It just makes my head swim to approach it.

I'll take the compliment - thanks!

That strikes me as odd that you have trouble identifying induction, because in the introduction to inductive logic the mathematical proof of the irrationality of the square root of 2 was the example we were given. It starts out right away with the assumption (which is illegal in deduction) that root 2 is rational, gives the definition of rational numbers, then leads the assumption up a blind alley and clubs it to death. Ironically, the final stage - identifying numbers that are not rational as irrational - is deductive, but whatcha gonna do?

Mike

Reply to
Michael Pardee

So *that's* what they are there for! I thought it was the instructions for using the computer. Now I know what's wrong with my tyuioping.

Mike

Reply to
Michael Pardee

Same could be said of most (all?) encyclopedias.

Reply to
Steve

Been following this thread but have not had much to add until now - and that's only my 2cents.

I am totally addiction to puzzles and IQ tests, and can't resists this one either. This one is just some basic high school physics and simple algebra, but the physics has been a while, so bear with me:

You first calculate velocity of the pile driver right before it hits the pile: v2 = u2 + 2as in where u = 0, a = 9.8 m/s2, s = h; v=sqt( 19.61 * H )

The momentum right before impact then is v * P

Since the impact is inelastic, we can say that the pile driver and pile have the same velocity after impact.

Momentum after impact = (P+D)V So, since before impact momentum = after impact momentum, we can say this: v*P = (P+D)V

So V = (v*P)/(P+D)

So the deceleration is: v2 = u2 + 2as in where v = 0, u = V, a = unknown, s = unknown;

The force that retards this movement is: F=MA given F=Unknown, M=P+D, A=unknown see above.

Resistance the sum of both the retardation force and pile-driver plus pile. R = F + P + D in which F is unknown.

I think one needs the R, so one can solve A, so one can solve s.

Maybe I am still mortal, huh? :) Remco

Reply to
Remco

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.