Honda Car Forum

"Elle" <elle_navorski@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:uP%_e.1199$4h2.787@newsread3.news.pas.earthli nk.net...
> "Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote
>> "Elle" <elle_navorski@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote
>> > 1.
>> > If Mike's "theory" is that which ID puts forth, then it has to be an
>> > "intelligent" entity that originated (x, y, z) on earth etc.
>> >
>> No - we can't say that. We can only say what should be the most common
>> scientific response, "we don't know."
>
> 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.
>
Miscommunication on my part - my brain went for a long wander. Of course you
are right.

Mike

Michael Pardee wrote:

>>3.
>>If one possibility left open for explaing life's origins is "gods" then of
>>course this is religion about which we're talking.
>>
>
> That one I will argue. The theory of evolution still leaves open the
> possibility of "gods" as does almost any theory. They also leave open the
> possibility of the "Chariot of the Gods" theory (hey - that one does qualify
> as a theory). Religion is here only if you insist on bringing it in.

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.


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0539-2, 09/29/2005
Tested on: 9/29/2005 7:32:01 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 04:21:04 +0000, Doug McCrary wrote:

> (off to the Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, 1976)
> keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
> newsan.2005.09.29.01.53.59.7503@att.bizzzz...
>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 21:08:29 +0000, AllEmailDeletedImmediately wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > "The Real Bev" <bashley@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
>> > news:433965C5.21A3F701@myrealbox.com...
>> >> AllEmailDeletedImmediately wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > "keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > >> > so is tomatoe and potatoe (i
>> >> > > >> >learned in 4th grade that dropping the 'e' was
>> > unacceptable).
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Not according to Webster. Neither are listed, even as
>> > alternatives.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > >> Life in the South, huh?
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > i learned it in illinois.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > When? Recently? That would figure.
>> >> >
>> >> > 40 yrs ago. paxton, il. mrs beers. i've had others tell me
>> > that
>> >> > they learned to spell them that way, too.
>> >>
>> >> ...which indicates that education in the USA has been heading to
>> > Hell in a
>> >> handbasket for a lot longer than we had hitherto suspected.
>> >
>> > was told that dropping the "e" was the new way of spelling it and that
>> > it wasn't an acceptable spelling in her class.
>>
>> Since they 'oe' spelling isn't even listed as archaic, I doubt your
>> "teacher's" story.
>>
>> --
>> Keith
>>
>
> I'd hypothesize an attempt to lend credibility to Dan Quayle, but a Google
> seems to show it *is* a pretty common error, and Dan's screwup too new.

DanQ was suckered into it by a que-card.

> Musta just been a moron teacher. I've had a couple, and know some now. Sadly.
> Kids (and their parents) need to challenge stupid/ignorant/misinformed teachers.
> But they need to do so in a private, non-confrontational manner. Unless there's
> no other way.

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).

--
Keith

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 18:43:39 +0000, AllEmailDeletedImmediately wrote:

>
> "Doug McCrary" <DougMcCrary@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:QYJ_e.6553$il4.2167@trnddc04...
>> (off to the Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, 1976)
>> keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
>> newsan.2005.09.29.01.53.59.7503@att.bizzzz...
>> > On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 21:08:29 +0000, AllEmailDeletedImmediately
> wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > > "The Real Bev" <bashley@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
>> > > news:433965C5.21A3F701@myrealbox.com...
>> > >> AllEmailDeletedImmediately wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> > "keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > >> > so is tomatoe and potatoe (i
>> > >> > > >> >learned in 4th grade that dropping the 'e' was
>> > > unacceptable).
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > Not according to Webster. Neither are listed, even as
>> > > alternatives.
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > >> Life in the South, huh?
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > i learned it in illinois.
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > When? Recently? That would figure.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > 40 yrs ago. paxton, il. mrs beers. i've had others tell
> me
>> > > that
>> > >> > they learned to spell them that way, too.
>> > >>
>> > >> ...which indicates that education in the USA has been heading
> to
>> > > Hell in a
>> > >> handbasket for a lot longer than we had hitherto suspected.
>> > >
>> > > was told that dropping the "e" was the new way of spelling it
> and that
>> > > it wasn't an acceptable spelling in her class.
>> >
>> > Since they 'oe' spelling isn't even listed as archaic, I doubt
> your
>> > "teacher's" story.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Keith
>> >
>>
>> I'd hypothesize an attempt to lend credibility to Dan Quayle, but a
> Google
>
> and wasn't he from il or in?

IN

--
Keith

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 18:41:53 +0000, AllEmailDeletedImmediately wrote:

>
> "keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
> newsan.2005.09.29.01.53.59.7503@att.bizzzz...
>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 21:08:29 +0000, AllEmailDeletedImmediately
> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > "The Real Bev" <bashley@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
>> > news:433965C5.21A3F701@myrealbox.com...
>> >> AllEmailDeletedImmediately wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > "keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > >> > so is tomatoe and potatoe (i
>> >> > > >> >learned in 4th grade that dropping the 'e' was
>> > unacceptable).
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Not according to Webster. Neither are listed, even as
>> > alternatives.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > >> Life in the South, huh?
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > i learned it in illinois.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > When? Recently? That would figure.
>> >> >
>> >> > 40 yrs ago. paxton, il. mrs beers. i've had others tell
> me
>> > that
>> >> > they learned to spell them that way, too.
>> >>
>> >> ...which indicates that education in the USA has been heading to
>> > Hell in a
>> >> handbasket for a lot longer than we had hitherto suspected.
>> >
>> > was told that dropping the "e" was the new way of spelling it and
> that
>> > it wasn't an acceptable spelling in her class.
>>
>> Since they 'oe' spelling isn't even listed as archaic, I doubt your
>> "teacher's" story.
>
> maybe she grew up somewhere else.

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

> well i remember it because the "e" is silent, and that was her way of
> making us remember to put it on there. and it wasn't plural. she said
> that not using the "e" was a colloquial (informal) spelling and would
> not be considered correct in her class. that was the first time i
> heard that word, as well.

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

--
Keith

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 18:35:47 +0000, AllEmailDeletedImmediately wrote:

>
> "keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
> newsan.2005.09.29.01.52.46.383908@att.bizzzz...
>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:44:24 +0000, AllEmailDeletedImmediately
> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > "keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
>> > newsan.2005.09.25.18.44.00.43374@att.bizzzz...
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >> > so is tomatoe and potatoe (i
>> >> >> >learned in 4th grade that dropping the 'e' was unacceptable).
>> >>
>> >> Not according to Webster. Neither are listed, even as
> alternatives.
>> >>
>> >> >> Life in the South, huh?
>> >> >
>> >> > i learned it in illinois.
>> >>
>> >> When? Recently? That would figure.
>> >
>> > 40 yrs ago. paxton, il. mrs beers. i've had others tell me
> that
>> > they learned to spell them that way, too.
>>
>> I grew up about 25mi south of Paxton and never had a patatoe or
> tomatoe.
>
> that would be potatoe.
>
I had a krappy tuping teechur too.

--
Keith

----- Original Message -----
From: "Elle" <elle_navorski@nospam.earthlink.net>
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??


> "Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote
>> "Elle" <elle_navorski@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote
>> > 3.
>> > If one possibility left open for explaing life's origins is "gods" then
> of
>> > course this is religion about which we're talking.
>> >
>> That one I will argue. The theory of evolution still leaves open the
>> possibility of "gods" as does almost any theory.
>
> 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.
>
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.

> No scientific theory will purport to explain a lack of evidence. This lack
> of evidence is what we have in the case of god.
>
>> They also leave open the
>> possibility of the "Chariot of the Gods" theory (hey - that one does
> qualify
>> as a theory). Religion is here only if you insist on bringing it in.
>
> 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.
>
Not nonsensical at all. I also scoff at Daniken's ideas, but it demonstrates
that religion is not implied by ID.

> 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.
>
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.

> 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.)
>
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.

>> Science rarely offers proofs.
>
> 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.)
>
>> If there were a proof, it would be a theorem,
>> not a theory. You are right that it requires deduction to arrive at a
> proof,
>> but under the rules of deduction the theorem is the result of the proof -
>> theories are not allowed. Theorems are invariably as dull as rice cakes.
>
> Deductive reasoning is ubiquitous. Science could absolutely not proceed
> without it. A rational discussion could not proceed without it.

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.

>
> Science also cannot proceed without inductive reasoning.
>
>> Induction is used for virtually everything in the real world - court
>> battles, accident and incident investigations, even safety analyses.
>> Every
>> analysis I have ever seen or done relies on probabilities: what is the
>> way
>> to bet?
>
> I am confident that you have seen and done many, many analyses that rely
> on
> deductive reasoning.
>
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.

> The courts, accident or whatever investigations, use deductive reasoning
> often.
>
> Supreme Court opinions by and large are an overdose of deductive
> reasoning.
>
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."

> Probabilistic predictions of course also rely heavily on deductive
> reasoning.
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.

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

>
> 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.
>
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.

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

>> The one my manager most appreciated was one of the loosest;
>> measuring system availability after one of our biggest facilities lost
>> all
>> power (don't ask!). One dimension had the impact of traffic on our system
>> bracketed between 30% and 50%, but the precisions of the time dimension
>> coupled with the marginal nature of the outage we were measuring kept the
>> uncertainty of our system availability to within a few tenths of a point.
> My
>> estimate was the only one any of us could come up with - everybody else
> was
>> trying to count trees rather than measure the forest. Loose as it was,
> that
>> report has become a model for our current availability reporting.
>
> 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.)
>
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 world also has fewer certainties than it did even a half century ago,
>> as
>> a result of [inaccurate writing redacted] quantum theory.
>
> That argument itself is deductive. <shrug>

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

"Matt Ion" <soundy@moltenimage.com> wrote in message
news:Qs1%e.5015$oW2.3537@pd7tw1no...
> Michael Pardee wrote:
>
>>>3.
>>>If one possibility left open for explaing life's origins is "gods" then
>>>of
>>>course this is religion about which we're talking.
>>>
>>
>> That one I will argue. The theory of evolution still leaves open the
>> possibility of "gods" as does almost any theory. They also leave open the
>> possibility of the "Chariot of the Gods" theory (hey - that one does
>> qualify as a theory). Religion is here only if you insist on bringing it
>> in.
>
> 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.
>
Right - there are a lot of atheist religions.

Mike

"Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote
> No - never, for the reasons I gave. I doubt you have ever seen them
outside
> formal proofs, because deduction requires predetermined certainty.

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(!) ;-)

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

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.

"Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote:
>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.

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.