msbelle I am so happy for you! October is so soon! Yay yay yay!
Now, I can hold a note for a long time...actually I can hold a note forever. But eventually that's just noise. It's the change we're listening for. The note coming after, and the one after that. That's what makes it music.
Host ,'Why We Fight'
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.
-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
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.
§ ita § - Sep 06, 2006 4:29:04 pm PDT #6486 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
I think mixing boolean logic and evidence is just asking for trouble, despite how much I like them both. Me, I'd just write "black" into the raven definition and be done with it.
Jesse, I get the article up until the estimation of population paragraph quoted. For intersections and preventing database surfing, it seems fair enough.
§ ita § - Sep 06, 2006 4:36:24 pm PDT #6487 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Michelle Trachtenberg's all grown up. At least a bit.
Topic!Cindy - Sep 06, 2006 4:42:30 pm PDT #6488 of 10001
What is even happening?
The flopsy asleep picture on Tom's shoulder? So darn cute. Parents are freaky and off-putting but a really cute darn pictures.Yes, that picture kinda made me like Tom Cruise, again. Father-baby pictures do that to me. It's a plot.
1) I don't have the funny syphilis. 2) I don't have lobsters. 3) I am not carrying/did not father the anti-christ.
In a survey of 25,000 peole, 33% select 1, 60% select 2 and 7% select 3.
How does this tell you the prevalence of any or all of the three?
Well, if you trust your list, then 2/3 have the funny syphilis, 40% have lobsters, and 93% are spawning the antichrist.
The thing I found confusing though ita (and Gar, is this what threw you, too?) is that they would ask people to put a check next to one vd they didn't have. I don't have any. If I only check lobsters, you can't assume I'm a syphilis ridden satan spawner, funny or un.
Oh, and now I see Jesse already asked that and you answered, and you're pain ridden, so ignore it. I'm just leaving it there for the alliteration.
§ ita § - Sep 06, 2006 4:44:04 pm PDT #6489 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Cindy, they're not asking about who you are. Or even, in specific, who you aren't. And that's where the migraine leaves me.