Need expert advice on how to handle a seemingly legitimate objection

[Wiploc]

The difference between your speed and the speed of light is always "infinity".

It's no wonder I stay confused. Everytime I turn around, there is yet another surprise.

Yeah, that one would have surprised Einstein too. Who knew that E = infinity squared?

That equation is for converting mass into energy.

I feel that you may be trying to characterize what I said. There is a reason I put the word "infinity" in quotation marks. I know that it's the wrong word but it is the word that I thought would help fast understand.

I still stand by the following statement though. It would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate any piece of matter, including you, to the speed of light. Ergo it would take an infinite amount of "accelerating" to reach the speed of light. Ergo there is an infinite metaphorical chasm between you and reaching the speed of light.

If you want to Use Einstein's equation to convert all of yourself into a form of energy like light and then thereby make your "energy self" travel the speed of light. Please do that elsewhere. I don't care to be near you when you destroy a nearby country.

I didn't notice the scare quotes. Sorry.

 

[Wiploc]

Let's look at another argument in the same form:

P1: Almost all Americans are poorer than Bill Gates.
P2: Bill Gates is an American.
C: Therefore, Bill Gates is probably poorer than Bill Gates.

First of all you did break the analogy to my original argument when you added extra information to it. The extra information you added was tying the measure to the sample with an identity.

My argument was a "statistical syllogism." It is meant to deal with uncounted masses. We already know how to compare individuals to themselves.

Still. I contend that your altered argument stands. *Absent any additional information* Bill Gates is probably poorer than Bill Gates.

Bill Gates can't be poorer than Bill Gates. That's nonsense.

But I like your "absent any additional information." If you add that to the original argument, I think you've got something:

1. Rex is a dog.
2. Most dogs weigh less than 1000kg.
3. We don't know anything else about Rex.
4. Therefore, Rex probably weighs less than 1000kg.

I'm comfortable with that.

But I still might not apply the term "valid" to it.

 

[Wiploc]

Further, speed is relative you say, but you don't really know. The notion of relative speed fits current observations but maybe scientists will observe something else tomorrow and decide that speed is absolute after all, i.e. that there is one, single, absolute, reference system. It's one thing to argue that we should abide by the one explanation that best fits observations so far, it's another to pretend that because we have such an explanation therefore we know that we know it's true to the 'real' world.
EB

We used to think the world was flat. Then we thought it was a sphere. Then we learned that it was slightly pear-shaped, an oblate spheroid. There may be further refinements, but we are never going back to thinking it is flat, and we are never going back to thinking speed is absolute.

 

[Juma]

But we are talking real space-time here. Not any topological space.

What do you mean 'real'?
EB

The real space-time where-in we all live.

 

[fromderinside]

Let's look at another argument in the same form:

P1: Almost all Americans are poorer than Bill Gates.
P2: Bill Gates is an American.
C: Therefore, Bill Gates is probably poorer than Bill Gates.

<snip>
Still. I contend that your altered argument stands. *Absent any additional information* Bill Gates is probably poorer than Bill Gates.

No. It sure is an interesting commingle but I can assure you that it's not true that Bill Gates is probably poorer than Bill Gates, whatever the premises might be.

P1 is Ok, obviously. P2 is good too. But C doesn't stand. It cannot be left to stand! I have my view why but maybe be you can recant on your acceptation of it? You already said you are used to change your mind, which if true is an indication of higher IQ than the average poster here... You even provided in your response to Wiploc what would be a good reason to change tack. So?
EB

WTH. BG is BG Since BG is BG BG cannot be different from BG. This isn't the way I read the initial silly-gsm. BG is am qamerican is true. BG is richer than most americans is true. However BG cannot be less or more rich than BG even though he is from the class, american. In order for one to use BG in the formulation one would need to cancel out the BG > MA before one uses BG in the second statement. Look at it this way. insert BG > MA in the second statement. It would read: probably BG > MA < BG < MA or nada. Another way to look at is to exclude BG from the class MA so one would not have justification for including BG among MA. So I guess what I'm saying is that A has two sub classes MA and BG which are mutually exclusive. The error in the logic is that BG was taken to be a member of MA.

 

[Kharakov]

Technically, depending on varying accounting methods, Bill Gates is poorer than Bill Gates, and richer than Bill Gates.

 

[fast]

Let's look at another argument in the same form:

P1: Almost all Americans are poorer than Bill Gates.
P2: Bill Gates is an American.
C: Therefore, Bill Gates is probably poorer than Bill Gates.

First of all you did break the analogy to my original argument when you added extra information to it. The extra information you added was tying the measure to the sample with an identity.

My argument was a "statistical syllogism." It is meant to deal with uncounted masses. We already know how to compare individuals to themselves.

Yes, absent the information about how much Rex weighs, the initial argument stands:

1 Almost all dogs are less than 1000 kg
2 Rex is a dog.
3 Rex is probably less than 1000 kg.

As soon as you add the information that for example Rex is a grown-up Hound dog of 1010kg then the conclusion "3 Rex is probably less than 1000 kg" cannot be substained.

Clearly, this kind of logic doesn't work like deductive logic. The example argument provided by zorq is not deductively valid but it is clearly valid, notwithstanding fast's initial claim.

So, again, what's the real difference?
EB

To say that an argument is not deductively valid yet valid doesn't jibe with me.

 

[Speakpigeon]

BG is am qamerican is true. BG is richer than most americans is true. However BG cannot be less or more rich than BG even though he is from the class, american.

Good.

In order for one to use BG in the formulation one would need to cancel out the BG > MA before one uses BG in the second statement.

No. Both premises are perfectly good, even for self-described sciency types.

insert BG > MA in the second statement. It would read: probably BG > MA < BG < MA or nada.

You have to show that one or both premises are wrong somehow, on their own merit, independently of each other. But they are not wrong.

Another way to look at is to exclude BG from the class MA so one would not have justification for including BG among MA. So I guess what I'm saying is that A has two sub classes MA and BG which are mutually exclusive.

Not bad but Bill Gates is definitely an American and "most Americans" may or may not include Bill Gates.

Further, I don't think you can take the expression "most Americans" as specifying a class. What is the distinguishing property?

You can always change P1 to "Almost all Americans but not Bill Gates are poorer than Bill Gates". It would solve the problem but in the wrong way because P1 is true since almost all American are indeed poorer than Bill Gates.

The error in the logic is that BG was taken to be a member of MA.

The two premises are true and the conclusion is wrong so there has to be some error in the logic. Yet, as worded, your suggestion is nonsensical since Bill Gates may well be included in most Americans (e.g. most Americans know Bill Gates). I would retain obviously the idea that he has to be excuded in some way but you can't rephrase any of the two premises if you can't show what's wrong with them in the first place. The point here is the principle of inference, the principle of the validity of that kind of argument, not whether we can make another argument (we know we can).
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

To say that an argument is not deductively valid yet valid doesn't jibe with me.

An inductive argument has to be inductively valid or invalid. If it is inductively valid then we can say it is valid in the same way we say of a deductively valid argument that it is valid.

We should be able to make the distinction because of the context since we should know whether we are talking about an inductive or a deductive argument, subject to how you may want to specify what is a deductive argument and what is an inductive argument.

Which comes round to my question of the real distinction between them. Any idea?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

we are talking real space-time here.

What do you mean 'real'?
EB

The real space-time where-in we all live.

Ah, but the space where exists the imaginary Santa Claus I'm thinking about is real whereas I don't know that there is a space-time wherein we would all live. Are you sure the space-time wherein we would all live exists at all? Apparently some physicists are questioning that you know.
EB

 

[steve_bnk]

Fascinating how some will step around simple real world examples of the problem of relative velocity withobvious conclusions.


One possible conclusion is anunwillingness to accept a simple proven answer and insist onconvoluted philosophizing. Another conclusion may be some people arejust incapable of thinking through very simple scientific reasoning amlogic.

 

[fromderinside]

It all comes down to whether BG s included in the set MA, Since BG is richer than MA (actually almost all A), the element under discussion here, he is explicitly not from the set MA. He is from the set Americans but that isn't what we are discussing in this argument. If he were included in the set MA one would have to generate a compensatory statement applying to BG just as I did in my post.

As for MA being a class, a subclass of A one needs to show a distinction between MA and the american BG. That was done in the first premise. when the referent was 'almost all americans'. In the second premise 'almost all americans' becomes 'americans'. It is true that BG is an american, but since BG is described in the first premise as 'richer than almost all Americans' means for the second premise to hold he must be included in the same context 'almost all americans' when he is evaluated on wealth. a member excluding almost all americans exists and it includes BG. For BG to be addressed in the second premise he must be addresses as from the 'richer than almost all americans'.

 

[fast]

To say that an argument is not deductively valid yet valid doesn't jibe with me.

An inductive argument has to be inductively valid or invalid.

Weak or strong perhaps, but valid? Cogent or not cogent perhaps, but valid? If you find an argument and it's valid, then it's deductive. If you find an argument and it's invalid, then it's deductive. If you find an argument and it's not valid, then it may or may not be deductive.

 

[steve_bnk]

To say that an argument is not deductively valid yet valid doesn't jibe with me.

An inductive argument has to be inductively valid or invalid.

Weak or strong perhaps, but valid? Cogent or not cogent perhaps, but valid? If you find an argument and it's valid, then it's deductive. If you find an argument and it's invalid, then it's deductive. If you find an argument and it's not valid, then it may or may not be deductive.

Can you give an illustrative real world example of deductive vs inductive, and how one may preclude validity?

BTW, what do you mean by valid?

what logic is exclusive to deduction and what logic is exclusive to inductee?

 

[Speakpigeon]

Since BG is richer than MA <snip> he is explicitly not from the set MA.

It's definitely not explicit. We do infer, indeed we deduce, that he should not be taken as included in "Almost all Americans". If we have to do that then it's not explicit.

So? You're really close to specifying a decent solution but I'm not sure you are really trying. You want either to change the premises or to overinterpret them. That's a definitive no-no. Something else has to change. So, what's left?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

To say that an argument is not deductively valid yet valid doesn't jibe with me.

An inductive argument has to be inductively valid or invalid.

Weak or strong perhaps, but valid? Cogent or not cogent perhaps, but valid? If you find an argument and it's valid, then it's deductive. If you find an argument and it's invalid, then it's deductive. If you find an argument and it's not valid, then it may or may not be deductive.

What's not valid here?

1 Almost all F are G;
2 a is F;
3 Therefore, a is probably G.

It's not just strong, or cogent. It's definitely the equivalent for induction of the notion of validity for deduction.

Maybe the question is, why do you want to give it a different name exactly (given that the context tells us is inductive validity in any case)?
EB

 

[fast]

To say that an argument is not deductively valid yet valid doesn't jibe with me.

An inductive argument has to be inductively valid or invalid.

Weak or strong perhaps, but valid? Cogent or not cogent perhaps, but valid? If you find an argument and it's valid, then it's deductive. If you find an argument and it's invalid, then it's deductive. If you find an argument and it's not valid, then it may or may not be deductive.

What's not valid here?

1 Almost all F are G;
2 a is F;
3 Therefore, a is probably G.

It's not just strong, or cogent. It's definitely the equivalent for induction of the notion of validity for deduction.

Maybe the question is, why do you want to give it a different name exactly (given that the context tells us is inductive validity in any case)?
EB

Can the conclusion be false?

 

[Wiploc]

Can the conclusion be false?

Sure, there are numberless examples:

1. Almost all women in third world countries are under 50 years old.
2. Great great great grandma Johnson is a woman in a third world country.
3. Therefore, great great great grandma Johnson is probably under 50 years old.

1. Almost all objects that were designated as planets remain designated as planets.
2. Pluto was designated as a planet.
3. Pluto is probably still designated as a planet.

 

[fast]

Can the conclusion be false?

Sure, there are numberless examples:

1. Almost all women in third world countries are under 50 years old.
2. Great great great grandma Johnson is a woman in a third world country.
3. Therefore, great great great grandma Johnson is probably under 50 years old.

1. Almost all objects that were designated as planets remain designated as planets.
2. Pluto was designated as a planet.
3. Pluto is probably still designated as a planet.

I don't get it. I mean, i do get it, but there's something complex going on that confuses me. It's bad enough that we're using the word "probably," but now I'm having trouble reconciling the fact we already know that Pluto was but is no longer designated as a planet.

 

[Wiploc]

Maybe we're missing a premise? Perhaps:

1. Almost all F are G;
2. a is F;
3. We don't know anything else about a.
4. Therefore, a is probably G.