Stop Conservatives from Voting

[lsbskins1]

That's an argument against induction, not deduction. Deduction cannot be wrong, if properly founded. Induction can be wrong, even if properly founded. 1+1 is deductive, but e=mc^2 is inductive. Nearly all science is inductive (interestingly, I say 'nearly all' because I do not know the entirety of science, and just because I am not personally aware of a lack of deductive theories in science doesn't preclude their possible existence -- go logic!)

Just thought I'd clear that up.

Nothing is beyond possible error, that is the true basis of scientific inquiry.

What is Deductive Reasoning?

Deductive reasoning is one of the two basic forms of valid reasoning. While inductive reasoning argues from the particular to the general, deductive reasoning argues from the general to a specific instance. The basic idea is that if something is true of a class of things in general, this truth applies to all legitimate members of that class. The key, then, is to be able to properly identify members of the class. Miscategorizing will result in invalid conclusions.

Both inductive and deductive reasoning are valid and both are subject to error. Not having found an error leads us to believe that any given hypothesis is valid and correct, but not having found the error does not preclude it's existence. That is why I said "philosophically speaking". Not having found, ever, a four sided triangle or a distance between two points whose shortest distance is not measured by a straight line or the square of a hypotenuse that was not equal to the sum of the other two squares, we accept these as facts. But other dimensions may exist where these axioms fail. The future is unknown.

Math, dear sir, remains as "unproven" and "unprovable" as anything else from the ontological standpoint.

[Deadeye]

Philosophically speaking, you can not prove that 1 + 1 ALWAYS = 2. What you can say is that every time you have previously counted the final amount after adding 1 to 1, you end up with 2.

We take it as fact that 1 + 1 = 2 because it always has, not because it has been absolutely and without any possible doubt been proven. It is, by your standard, nothing more than an unproven hypothesis, a pipe dream.

You can prove that something never has been, but you can not prove that something never will be. True science is not absolute in ANY conclusion. It always assumes the possibility that what we think we know may be wrong.

What I can tell you in relation to these statements of "fact" is that the Theory of Evolution as accepted by science is not the same today as when it was formulated by Darwin. It has been rigourously tested and it has been adapted to correct some early mistaken assumptions and posits made by Darwin. But by and large, his assumptions have stood up to testing. To claim otherwise is nothing but a bold faced lie. It is not junk science. And neither are the hypotheses behind Climate Change Theory.

However 1 + 1 will always equal 2 if you first establish that you are going to use the number/math system where it always does. Therefore within an understood system it is always true.

W/t Darwinish it has changed with he first concocted the theory, and I rather agree with him, or with how it has morphed over time.

Concerning "True Science", when a hypothesis is tested and proven, because the results of those tests, then it is considered as fact and it can be confidently applied where it is appropriate. Now you can skew an axiom by changing where it's applied, such as pushing something to close to the speed of light, or making it very very small, etc. But when applied within the condition when it was proven it'll remain as fact..

[Deadeye]

Both inductive and deductive reasoning are valid and both are subject to error.

You are talking Chaos Theory here, which says it is always a possibility that things that have always gone right, can go wrong. That may be true, but don't bank on it. The probability of something always happening in a given set of circumstances there it has been proven as fact is very high; however, because of the Chaos Theory something can go wrong, but not often, and it can generally be discounted.

[Deadeye]

The future is unknown.

That's true, but it can be predicted within a given range. We know, for instance that eventually the sun will turn into a Red Giant and it's burn the Earth to a cinder.

Or, we know that it appears that the gallaxy Andromeda will likely collide with our galaxy The Milky Way in a couple of billion years. What happens however, when that event occurs can only be speculated to.

So, while the future is unknown it can be predicted with at least some degree of reliability. The chances that the sun will come up tomorrow is high. The chances of Linsey Lohan breaking her addiction to drugs is not.

Therefore, we can live our lives in tune with what has been proven as workable, because the chances of it working again, such as marriage between members of different sexes creating children and a happy family, will likely happen in the future. Chaos is rare, the chances of success by applying traditional values to our lives is high.

[Tycoon]

Or, we know that it appears that the gallaxy Andromeda will likely collide with our galaxy The Milky Way in a couple of billion years. What happens however, when that event occurs can only be speculated to.

Andromeda–Milky Way collision - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As with all such collisions, it is unlikely that objects such as stars contained within each galaxy will actually collide, as galaxies are in fact very diffuse—Proxima Centauri, the nearest star to the Sun, is almost thirty million solar diameters away from the Earth. If the collision occurs, the galaxies will likely merge into one larger galaxy.

Not very relevant but I liked the topic. :)

[Deadeye]

got any numbers on what percentage of your population elects to emigrate to the US as opposed the the % of US citizens who elect to emigrate to Wales?

Few Americans know where Wales is, or that it is. Does it have something to do with big fish?

[Libhater]

Few Americans know where Wales is, or that it is. Does it have something to do with big fish?

LOL! ...Good one Dead. You think they might get the hint now by going back to the original topic?

[Deadeye]

Not very relevant but I liked the topic. :)

Yeah, the thought is that they two bodies will just pass through oneanother. But don't hold your breath it'll be a while yet.

What is the topic of this thread anyway?

Oh, conservatives voting. Well, whether the liberals want us to vote or not we will in November. That will be interesting to see. The electorite, no matter how many times Obama and his thugs bring it up, understand that Bush is no longer in the running. We also know that the banking collapse was caused by government regulations that Bush tried to end, but was thwarted at every attempt by democrats to do so.

Obama has lost the Republicans, the Independents (there are a lot of them) and a good many Demos. So it'll likely be very messy for Democrats this November. I sure hope so. But liberals will do their best to dig up as much dirt as they can; after their leaders have been ousted by the House that is. There are a lot of Democrat crooks being censured.

[Dodds]

We also know that the banking collapse was caused by government regulations that Bush tried to end, but was thwarted at every attempt by democrats to do so.
.

O_o

I was pretty sure the LACK of regulation caused the banks to collapse.

[Tycoon]

O_o

I was pretty sure the LACK of regulation caused the banks to collapse.

That was my understanding.

[minorwork]

Don't know as regulation, over or under, is what to call it.

If you ran a bank that was successful in culling applicants and granted loans to those most likely to pay back the loans, then some guys come to you from ACORN threatening to sue you for turning down those applicants, and you went to the Federal Reserve with the problem, and the Fed said they would make the loans good, what would you have done? You'd make the bad loans. You would do so if the money you loaned was the Federal Reserve's and they mandated you make the loans being assured that losses would be made up by the Fed. You don't care now about making good loans to those most apt to pay them back. Now you're guaranteed a profit by the Fed.

If that scenario was the case, would regulation of some sort be what caused the failed loans to render the bank insolvent if the loans were guaranteed by the Fed?

[Dodds]

Well the Fed is not a government agency, its a private bank so it would be one private bank loaning to another private bank.