I think that would be hard to fit into the melody and/or rhyming scheme.
What about the Heartbreak of Psoriasis?
'Day' is a vestigial mode of time measurement based on solar cycles. It's not applicable. I didn't get you anything.
River ,'Out Of Gas'
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.
Sue - Sep 06, 2006 4:12:53 pm PDT #6476 of 10001
hip deep in pie
Jesse - Sep 06, 2006 4:15:51 pm PDT #6477 of 10001
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.
I didn't read the article, just Typo's post, which said:
Dr Esponda gives the example of a negative survey in which respondents are asked to tick the box of one sexually transmitted disease they do not have.
Just one. Apparently.
Ailleann - Sep 06, 2006 4:16:19 pm PDT #6478 of 10001
vanguard of the socialist Hollywood liberal homosexualist agenda
tommyrot's link a while back gave me instant allergies.
Bones: So glad that Booth got his crap together. Also ack on the shaken baby stuff!
Justice: This show's ok, but I feel like SpyDaddy is yelling all the time. Don't know that I like that.
Also.... MUSHROOM MUSHROOM. t /earworm
§ ita § - Sep 06, 2006 4:18:22 pm PDT #6479 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Jesse, I'll get back to you when I've caught up on the whole thing. I think it's a dumb idea, but not because it can't work (though if it's based on Hempel's Paradox, well, does it even have to?) but because it looks no better than the normal way.
-t - Sep 06, 2006 4:18:58 pm PDT #6480 of 10001
I am a woman of various inclinations and only some of the time are they to burn everything down in frustration
msbelle I am so happy for you! October is so soon! Yay yay yay!
Jesse - Sep 06, 2006 4:19:54 pm PDT #6481 of 10001
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.
Jesse, I'll get back to you when I've caught up on the whole thing.
No need -- I don't actually care.
Rick - Sep 06, 2006 4:20:59 pm PDT #6482 of 10001
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.
I don't think that this is absurd. Perhaps it illustrates the difference between formal logic and the way that science works in the real world. We can never really prove that all ravens are black, because we can never find all ravens. Each additional black raven provides very little additional evidence. Sometimes it is more efficient to look for birds that resemble ravens in all other respects but are not black, and see if any of them are ravens. Unlike formal logical conclusions, the conclusions of empirical science are always provisional. Nothing is ever proven for all time. It's just a matter of putting a hypothesis at risk in as many creative ways as you can think of. Sometimes going at it backwards can help.
§ ita § - Sep 06, 2006 4:22:40 pm PDT #6483 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Nothing is ever proven for all time
Do you still call it a proof?
Rick - Sep 06, 2006 4:23:52 pm PDT #6484 of 10001
Do you still call it a proof?
No, it's just evidence for one view or another.
-t - Sep 06, 2006 4:29:03 pm PDT #6485 of 10001
I am a woman of various inclinations and only some of the time are they to burn everything down in frustration
So is it a fallacy or not a fallacy? Or is it a fallacy to think it's a fallacy?
The way I had heard it (that if you want to prove that all ravens are black you could travel the world seeking out all the ravens you could, or you could sit in your study drinking gin and tonics and noting all the non-black non-ravens you could see, either way was fine) didn't imply that it was a fallacy, just non-intuitive.
Sad that I have no gin nor tonic just now. I can occasionally see ravens in my yard, though. No writing desk, alas.