Prev: about understanding conjugate roots in Q[x]-
Next: Countdown to the 2010 Fields medal(s)
From: Bret Cahill on 3 Aug 2010 17:40

> > > Nothing is true and certain,
>
> > It's certain
>
> ...that the Big Carbon Conspiracy

Just because you Lyndon LaRouche winger dingers think 99% of the
scientists on the planet are in on a century old conspiracy doesn't
mean educated folk think you conspiracy theorists are any thing more
but isolated ignorant winger dingers.

And you keeps dodgin' 'n dodgin' The Question:

Who set you up with that Lyndon LaRouche link to a dowser?


From: Shrikeback on 3 Aug 2010 17:59
On Aug 3, 2:40 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...(a)peoplepc.com> wrote:
> > > > Nothing is true and certain,
>
> > > It's certain
>
> > ...that the Big Carbon Conspiracy
>
> Just

Shh! Big Carbon will hear you. That
tinfoil over your windows can't keep
them out.
From: Bret Cahill on 3 Aug 2010 18:12
> > > Nothing is true and certain,
>
> > It's certain
>
> ...that the Big Carbon Conspiracy

Yer projectin' again.

Just because you Lyndon LaRouche winger dingers think 99% of the
scientists on the planet are in on a century old conspiracy doesn't
mean educated folk think you conspiracy theorists are anything more
but isolated ignorant winger dingers.

And you keeps a dodgin' 'n dodgin' The Question:

Who set you up with that Lyndon LaRouche link to a dowser?


From: Fabrizio J Bonsignore on 4 Aug 2010 12:59
Sorry... the answer lies in science but is elsewhere. You are posing
different fallacies, one of which is solved through the ex ante/ex
post conception in economics. Then strictly speaking error is defined
in terms of knowledge and lack of knowledge so your problem is
empiric, whether you can TEST any ticket or not! If you cannot TEST
any ticket, the lottery had not taken place! If you hide the winner
number for ever and cannot test it... it is no lottery but a scam!
Then you are arguing a priori before it takes place at all, but
_hypothetically_ even hens can do physics! In equilibrium, no matter
the number, your winning chance is 1/N and that is the probability of
ANY particular number winning, the bigger the number, the more P
approaches 0 til in infinity (pass to the limit), P=0. Now you are in
sheer academic statistics and you will not find a method to win at
all, but you want to decide your tecnical level of confidence and THAT
is an economic theory. The paradox is apparent only and there is no
contradiction but you changed referents somewhere in the middle of the
argument and lumped time together. Basically what you say is that you
TEST each ticket, then reject the winner and continue testing to
verify the next ticket is not a winning ticket! At some point you are
already certain ex post. And finally, all people will be sure they did
not win but ONE. Their belief is consistent and real but uncertain til
they test. ONE of them is WRONG, in ERROR and will realize the moment
it tests. SO your argument is a common fallacy known as fallacy of
composition: what is true for one is true for a group and viceversa,
but that is not true. None of your players is honest in your argument,
and that is the deep rationale to forbid gambling games and to
regulate them with the State: if all are CERTAIN absolutely they did
not win... why enter the lottery if it is voluntary and you know you
lost BEFOREHAND? Because ALL expect to be WRONG and get a surprise! Or
you would have a pack of dishonest crazies you better watch out. You
are not discussing paradox or contradictions, you are discussing self
deceit and emotional self manipulation... There may be other fallacies
hidden in the argument, but this should be enough to exemplify it...
Truth lies not in philosophy...

Danilo J Bonsignore
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: about understanding conjugate roots in Q[x]-
Next: Countdown to the 2010 Fields medal(s)