![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 28 to 52 of 69. Go back in thread:
Posted by linkadge on December 3, 2005, at 14:38:52
In reply to Re: ...addendum » linkadge, posted by alexandra_k on December 2, 2005, at 14:51:36
You are right, that statements are either true or false.
But if you have a statement that has not been proven true or false, then it cannot be deemed true or false.
There could be a third yet undescoverfed relation factor.
Say, if we knew that, due to Ace's popularity, there was a statistic likelyhood that others would believe the same.
If this were true, then the statement would be true.
So simple if, then statements cannot be discounted based on the fact that a connection cannot be seen.
Linkadge
Posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 14:38:52
In reply to Re: ...addendum, posted by linkadge on December 2, 2005, at 16:34:14
> You are right, that statements are either true or false.
in a two-valued logic your statement is true
this is the principle of bivalenceEITHER T OR F AND NOT BOTH
> But if you have a statement that has not been proven true or false, then it cannot be deemed true or false.we do not know whether tomorrow will be the end of the world or not. the statement 'the world will end at time t' is either true or false independently of what (if anything) we can know about it...
we might not know whether a certain mathematical theorum is true or false, but it is either true or false independently of whether we ever manage to figure that out or not...> There could be a third yet undescoverfed relation factor.
many valued logics reject the principle of bivalence: that every proposition is either true or false and not both. there are two forms of rejection: the first is the idea that there are more values than these. the second is that propositions may be neither true nor false (lacking a truth value).
This manouver is to deal with some special kinds of statements such as
'the present king of france is bald'.
It is not T, so it must be F.
but to say it is F is to imply / logically entail that
'there is a present king of france and that present king of france is bald' is T.
but of course 'there is a present king of france' is F. and thus 'there is a present king of france and that king of france is bald' is F.there are contradictions in two-valued logic (which is a disgrace)
> Say, if we knew that, due to Ace's popularity, there was a statistic likelyhood that others would believe the same.
(P1) Ace is a popular person
(P2) Most babblers believe what a popular person believes
(P3) Ace is a babbler and Ace believes 'I am smarter than my p-doc'
______________________________________________
(C) Most (the same referent as P3) babblers believe 'I am smarter than my p-docThat argument is deductively valid.
(It is impossible to describe a situation where the premises are true and the conclusion false without contradiction)The relationship between the premises and conclusion is very tight
The trouble is that if people believe premiss 1 or 2 (or both) to be false then they have no reason to believe the conclusion on the basis of the argument.
(Regardless of whether the conclusion is true or not people have no reason to believe the conclusion on the basis of the argument and thus the argument is not rationally persuasive)
In order for a valid argument to be rationally persuasive
Other people would have to be likely to accept the truth of the premises
If you have a valid argument and people believe the premisses are all true then they would be endorsing contradiction to deny the conclusion
> If this were true, then the statement would be true.The argument would be deductively valid / its degree of inductive force would be 100%
But...
If we think either premiss 1 or 2 (or both) are false then we have no reason to come to believe the conclusion.
> So simple if, then statements cannot be discounted based on the fact that a connection cannot be seen.P1) grass is green
______________
C) the sun is hotThere is no contradiction in imagining a possible world with green grass and no sun or a cold sun or whatever. The argument is not deductively valid. The argument is not rationally persuasive (because it is an attempt at a deductive argument and it is invalid).
Yet...
The sun is hot.
We just don't have reason to believe the truth of the conclusion
ON THE BASIS OF
The reason (premiss) provided.
Posted by CamW on December 3, 2005, at 14:38:53
In reply to Re: ...addendum » linkadge, posted by alexandra_k on December 2, 2005, at 22:10:28
It has been my experience, that, on this board, 50% of posters are of below average intelligence.
;-P
- Cam (I believe that I need to thank Arthur C. Clark for this one)
P.S. Think about it before getting nasty. - C.
Posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 14:38:53
In reply to Looking at it another way...., posted by CamW on December 3, 2005, at 0:42:38
ROFL
thanks :-)
Posted by linkadge on December 3, 2005, at 14:42:08
In reply to Re: ...addendum » linkadge, posted by alexandra_k on December 2, 2005, at 22:10:28
Say you are testing a person to see if they are HIV positive. We know that they are either positive or negative, but the test itself could come back inconclusive, meaning that it is impossable to tell which one it is at this time.
I'm not disputing the fact that the person is still either positive or negative however.
Linkadge
Posted by Larry Hoover on December 3, 2005, at 14:42:08
In reply to Looking at it another way...., posted by CamW on December 3, 2005, at 0:42:38
> It has been my experience, that, on this board, 50% of posters are of below average intelligence.
>
> ;-P
>
> - CamAnd 50% of pharmacists graduated in the bottom half of their class. ;-)
Good to see you, Cam. Are you coming to this year's Babble Reunion or whatever they're calling it? Babble Birthday?
Lar
Posted by zenhussy on December 3, 2005, at 14:42:08
In reply to Looking at it another way...., posted by CamW on December 3, 2005, at 0:42:38
interesting observation there Cam. ;-)
Posted by phil on December 3, 2005, at 15:25:08
In reply to Looking at it another way...., posted by CamW on December 3, 2005, at 0:42:38
Anyone have a calculator?
Posted by pseudoname on December 3, 2005, at 16:31:25
In reply to Looking at it another way...., posted by CamW on December 3, 2005, at 0:42:38
> It has been my experience, that, on this board, 50% of posters are of below average intelligence.
> ;-PThat's possible, but it wouldn't always be true, even taking the average of only the people who post on this board (not the average of all people everywhere). Consider:
Say there are 100 people who post. On some scale of intelligence that has scores of 0-10...
90 posters have scores of 10.0
10 posters have scores of 9.0
The average intelligence is then 9.9, and 90% of posters on the board have ABOVE-average intelligence.Or say of 100 people posting on some other site...
1 poster has a score of 10.0.
99 posters have scores of 1.0.
The average intelligence is then 1.09, and 99% of posters on that board have BELOW-average intelligence.The statement, "On this board, 50% of posters are of below MEDIAN intelligence," would always be true (+/- 1 poster).
Posted by pseudoname on December 3, 2005, at 16:40:29
In reply to Re: Looking at it another way.... » CamW, posted by Larry Hoover on December 3, 2005, at 13:25:36
I forgot to add (to my preceding post about averages) that Larry's statement...
> And 50% of pharmacists graduated in the bottom half of their class.
...is, I think, always true, since it refers to a percentile, not an average.
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 3, 2005, at 17:54:20
In reply to 99% can be below-average » CamW, posted by pseudoname on December 3, 2005, at 16:31:25
I think that was the point, or the meaning of the comment.. which was meant tongue-in-cheek.
Posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 17:54:48
In reply to ...I should've added... » Larry Hoover, posted by pseudoname on December 3, 2005, at 16:40:29
heh heh.
math...:-)
Posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 17:55:32
In reply to Re: 99% can be below-average » pseudoname, posted by Gabbix2 on December 3, 2005, at 17:54:20
> I think that was the point, or the meaning of the comment.. which was meant tongue-in-cheek.
yeah. and i don't think the post that started the thread was really intended as an argument either...
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 3, 2005, at 18:47:51
In reply to Re: 99% can be below-average » Gabbix2, posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 17:55:32
I don't think so either.. :)
Posted by pseudoname on December 3, 2005, at 22:01:27
In reply to Re: 99% can be below-average » pseudoname, posted by Gabbix2 on December 3, 2005, at 17:54:20
> Re: 99% can be below-average » pseudoname
> I think that was the point, or the meaning of the comment.. which was meant tongue-in-cheek.Gabbix...
I was sorry to see you thought my post was not appropriate.
You're right, Cam's post was tongue-in-cheek. But why do you think I didn't understand that?
This entire thread (that got moved) is playful with math & logic.
My post also plays with numbers, words, and rules. I thought it, too, *might* be pleasurable for people who enjoy logic games and math. At least it could be interesting.
I really am sorry. (I'm not being sarcastic.) I guess I'm still too socially tone-deaf to see why the other 29 logic-laden, playfully-correcting-each-other, back-&-forth posts are acceptable (including my earlier ones, I guess) but my last observation was not.
I'm open to anyone's suggestions, but please be gentle.
Posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 22:06:54
In reply to What did I do wrong? » Gabbix2, posted by pseudoname on December 3, 2005, at 22:01:27
hey...
i shouldn't really speak for gabbi...
and i'm sure that she will come along and speak for herself but...
i don't want you beating yourself up longer than you have to...> > I think that was the point, or the meaning of the comment.. which was meant tongue-in-cheek.
i really don't think she meant that as a personal criticism. or even meant to say that your post was inappropriate. i actually came along here to sort a little something out myself...
> This entire thread (that got moved) is playful with math & logic.
:-)
yeah
> My post also plays with numbers, words, and rules. I thought it, too, *might* be pleasurable for people who enjoy logic games and math. At least it could be interesting.:-)
> I really am sorry. (I'm not being sarcastic.) I guess I'm still too socially tone-deaf to see why the other 29 logic-laden, playfully-correcting-each-other, back-&-forth posts are acceptable (including my earlier ones, I guess) but my last observation was not.(((((((pseudoname))))))))
its okay. i really don't think she meant anything personal. or anything personal about your post...
Posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 22:14:18
In reply to Re: What did I do wrong?, posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 22:06:54
hmmmm
depends on what you mean by 'smarter'.
they would probably beat me at the GRE anyday of the week...
or the intelligence tests even (but i bet they get to play with 'em more than me - no fair!)
i don't really know the first thing about medication so i guess i trust their judgement on that (because i'm too lazy to study it myself)
but even if i did study it myself they'd still have years on me...
and thus if i disagreed it would hinge on WHY they thought as they did (and their reasons for that) and WHY I thought as I did (and my reasons for that) and so is somebody neglecting an important piece of information or something?its not really about 'smarter than'
but i do take what they have to say with a grain of salt
(or a whole shaker)
;-)
but then if i believed everything they told me...:-(
i guess what i find tricky sometimes...
is people on the meds board...
whose p-doc tells them to do one thing...
and they proceed to do something different without informing their p-doc of that first.because...
there could be a reason why that is not a good idea. a reason that people don't know because they haven't formally learned the relevant information (and thus might miss something relevant).
but i don't know...
i don't know much about medications...
except...
that they don't seem to do a lot for me.
Posted by Larry Hoover on December 3, 2005, at 22:17:18
In reply to ...I should've added... » Larry Hoover, posted by pseudoname on December 3, 2005, at 16:40:29
> I forgot to add (to my preceding post about averages) that Larry's statement...
>
> > And 50% of pharmacists graduated in the bottom half of their class.
>
> ...is, I think, always true, since it refers to a percentile, not an average.It is always true because 50% is a half, of anything.
The 50th percentile is the median, so that's also another way of saying the same thing.
Lar
Posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 22:17:49
In reply to Re: What did I do wrong?, posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 22:06:54
oh.
and i enjoyed your posts
and your sense of humour.
had to think about the math ;-)
Posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 22:21:09
In reply to Re: ...I should've added... » pseudoname, posted by Larry Hoover on December 3, 2005, at 22:17:18
ew.
and i was contemplating enrolling in stats 101 over summer school to try and get over my phobia of numbers...letters are okay...
but numbers are funny.
is number dyslexia a disorder - anyone?
i'm serious...
i think i have issues reading and transcribing numbers...
3's become 8's
and 6's become 5's etc
even when it's typed
and so i put them into my calculator all wrong
:-(
and get a novel answer everytime i do an equation :-(
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 3, 2005, at 22:43:20
In reply to What did I do wrong? » Gabbix2, posted by pseudoname on December 3, 2005, at 22:01:27
Oh Absolutely nothing!
Alexandra was absolutely right, I wasn't sure that your post meant that you knew Cam was being tongue in cheek that's all. It's so difficult to read intonation into plain type.
I'm really sorry that I made you feel bad
There was no need for you to apologize at all((Pseudoname))
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 3, 2005, at 22:45:04
In reply to Re: What did I do wrong?, posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 22:06:54
I really appreciated that, you were exactly right and I'm glad you said something, I felt awful that my post came across that way and I too am glad that Pseudoname didn't have to feel bad any longer than necessary
Posted by Phillipa on December 3, 2005, at 23:15:32
In reply to Re: ...or overgeneralizing? » badhaircut, posted by Larry Hoover on December 1, 2005, at 13:08:02
Wow this Thread is going on and on. The answer to me is that you need to know all about the meds you are taking. Ask questions both to the pdoc and pharmacist. And based on your reaction to them. Call pdoc and say what they are. It is ultimately your decision whether to take them or not. And not everyone responds to meds or even responds the same way. We are all individuals. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by Larry Hoover on December 4, 2005, at 0:26:40
In reply to Re: What did I do wrong? » alexandra_k, posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 22:17:49
> oh.
> and i enjoyed your posts
> and your sense of humour.
> had to think about the math ;-)I like that little trick, alex, posting complements to yourself. Sly girl, you. ;-)
Posted by Larry Hoover on December 4, 2005, at 0:40:37
In reply to Re: ...I should've added..., posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 22:21:09
> ew.
> and i was contemplating enrolling in stats 101 over summer school to try and get over my phobia of numbers...And, perhaps to get a grounding in population study, and the individual. Very useful.
> letters are okay...
>
> but numbers are funny.
>
> is number dyslexia a disorder - anyone?Dyscalculia. Hundreds of thousands of hits on Google. Lots of stuff about how to manage/cope.
> i'm serious...So am I.
> i think i have issues reading and transcribing numbers...
>
> 3's become 8's
> and 6's become 5's etc
> even when it's typed
> and so i put them into my calculator all wrong
> :-(
> and get a novel answer everytime i do an equation :-(Ya, that's what would happen. And that's an example I could have seen, straight from the first website I looked at. "Students with dyscalculia have a very difficult time visualizing numbers and often mentally mix up the numbers, resulting in what appear to be 'stupid mistakes.'"
When you're less busy, we can talk about it, if you'd like.
Lar
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.