go thread go

Igor @ 29/12/2017 16:27

god thread god

sucks that chris ruined this thread

I don't know about that. 10 pages on fan fiction seems about right.

Cactus @ 24/12/2017 16:51

and finally, i'm going to whine a little that it takes a frustratingly long time for developments in metatheory to filter down to primary/secondary education. we're still producing armies of students who think they understand scientific methods (yes, plural) because their teachers wrongly imagine they're teaching it. they tend to only teach the HD model and forget that the D stands for 'deductive' (and worse, imagine that deduction is the opposite of induction). the old trope that one cannot prove a negative only works within certain epistemological constraints that science never actually signed up for. yeah, yeah, analytical certainty is the gold standard, but what a mountain to climb -- the dream of inducing the entire universe into analytic propositions so we can play modus ponens all day long is a complete pipe dream. it is also not how things work in actual practice, at all. we can use tools like statistical inference and rhetorical logic and still be scientific. logical empiricism was abandoned over a half-century ago and the entire point of the DN model is that we have a more robust causal relata (through postdiction) and can be far more deductive about things within a scientific context. and so now the key point -- you can prove a negative by deduction, so nothing prevents us from playing modus tollens all day. yay science!

yeah dawg yeah i was just reading this the other day

"Catullus;4028"

i also want to point out that the whole thing about not being able to prove a negative is pseudologic. one of the most common syllogistic forms is the modus tollens, which expressly proves a negative. without it, you've lost an entire branch of the rules of inference and induction itself falls flat. and without induction, say goodbye to all of science and half of math. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens

Okay, but note that you're actually forced to "play modus tollens all day" until you finally stumble across an analytic claim to anchor your propositional chain onto. Because otherwise, all you've got is a contained synthetic system that might be highly descriptive but in the end only agrees with itself -- and isn't that the nature of most religions already? How does the analytic approach the synthetic if they don't even once share an exclusively discrete explanans?

weren't they already in the religion section?

Happy zombie Jesus day everyone!