Best to keep me locked up on campus, because my first thought was "pq equivalent to ~p~q was hardly news in the 40s".
Jasmine ,'Power Play'
Natter 46: The FIGHTIN' 46
Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.
ok, so I should tell you all that I got a report card? and his behavior was very good in all classes?
Dude, seriously? Love.
No shit.
edit: That was to amych, but works well to Jesse
Okay, some googling reveals:
Hempel's confirmation paradox. According to Boolean logic, "all ravens are black" is equivalent to "all nonblack entities are nonravens". That is,schematically, "(raven --> black) --> (not-black --> not-raven)". This is a straightforward consequence of the standard definition of implication. But is it not the case that, if A and B are equivalent hypotheses, evidence in favor of B is evidence in favor of A. It follows that every observation of something which is not black and also not a raven is evidence that ravens are black. This is patently absurd.
Okay, that makes sense. In that it's not supposed to. Now I'm going to read the rest of the article guardedly.
I just got spam from "doesnt exist." I think it was trying to take my money.
Narrator?
Uh, what's weird about that?
Yeah, it's your standard, run-of-the-mill contrapositive.
Timelies all!
Happy Birthday Flea!
Yay for msbelle and mac!
Woke up this morning with a pain in my hip(actually in the area where the leg meets the hip). Actually, I woke up =because= of the pain. I didn't think I was that restless a sleeper.
Also,
It follows that every observation of something which is not black and also not a raven is evidence that ravens are black.
No it doesn't.
from the fallacy link: Shifting the burden of proof: challenging the audience to disprove the argument.
Anyone have an example of this? I think my brain is skipping. I don't get it.