AL

I'm not sure in what context you are using those terms, but while a logical argument or inference can be valid or invalid, the actual conclusions can be regarded as true or false. When making a deduction, if the premises of a valid inference are true, then the conclusion is true. If the premises of an invalid inference are true, one can say nothing of the conclusion. Also, if the premises of an argument are false, one can still say nothing of the conclusion, regardless of whether the inference is valid or invalid. Some examples to illustrate this: Premise 1: Socrates is a man. Premise 2: Men are mortal. Conclusion: Socrates is mortal. True premises, valid inference, true conclusion. Premise 1: Socrates is a man. Premise 2: Men are mortal. Conclusion: Socrates likes men. True premises, invalid inference, can't be certain the conclusion is true or false.

I wonder if it is possible to design a maze that has a valid solution, but in which strict turn alternation is guaranteed to get you stuck and unable to complete the maze. We'd have to allow for the woodlouse to turn around when it hits a dead end with no real left or right path, but other than that, a strict turn alternation pattern seems like it is guaranteed to eventually yield a solution, even if it's not the most efficient path out of the maze. Maybe some mathematicians or computer scientists would like to take a shot at proving if a strict turn alternation algorithm is guaranteed to get you out of any maze with a valid solution? Ha. I never knew a pill bug was called a woodlouse outside of America. They're also called sow bugs, and colloquially, they are known as "rolly polys," or as they are sometimes called by small children who are fascinated by the critter's ball form, "woo-puoys." (rhymes with "buoy.")

I was watching MXC on Spike TV today, just for kicks. For those that don't know, it is a show where they play video clips from zany game shows out of Japan, and then offer silly commentary in English. Great show. In any case, they showed a clip from a trivia show in which they asked contestants if it was true or false that pill bugs (or sow bugs or rolly pollys) always and consistently alternate between turning right and turning left each time they encounter a wall or obstacle. After the contestants chose their answer, a University of Tokyo professor came out and said the answer is true that they always, without fail, follow a right-left-right-left-right-left-right (and so on) pattern. They then showed video clips of 3 pill bugs placed inside a maze. Sure enough, each bug went straight until it hit a wall, then it turned right and continued until it hit a wall, turned left and continued until it hit a wall, turned right....etc. All 3 bugs did it. I tried to check this out on the web, but couldn't turn up anything about it. This is very peculiar if true, and I want to know more about this. Anyone know a) if this is true, and b) what causes pill bugs to do this? Edit: Just found out that "woodlouse" is another name for pill bug. Did a search on that and found some info like this: http://asab.icapb.ed.ac.uk/practicals/woodlice_turning.html Apparently, turn alternation is a real phenomenon, and woodlice aren't the only creatures that do it. Fascinating. It's like one of nature's earliest problem solving algorithms to help primitive creatures get around obstacles.

A cup-a-soup hypothesis is scientifically testable. If abiogenesis from ordinary molecules in a primordial soup occurred, it would be theoretically possible to duplicate it in a lab. Many have tried (Miller & Urey for instance), and all have unfortunately failed. But failure does not prove it is impossible. It at best proves no one knows how to do it yet. A "God did it" hypothesis is not testable, though you may be able to test some implications of it and from that possibly make a weak induction that God really did do it, but that's another topic altogether and I don't want to sidetrack this one.

That statement is self-refuting. If you cannot prove anything to be true, then you cannot prove that very claim to be true, so there's no reason to regard it as such. This world is real, even if I was plugged into a giant computer simulation and wasn't aware of it. My failure to understand the true nature of my world doesn't render my world unreal. I don't agree with your epistemology. There are things which are blatantly self-evident that to deny them would be absurd. Your own existence, for instance, is one of many things which can be treated as axiomatic. It is self-evident. To deny it is preposterous, as you must exist in order to carry out the act of denial. The exact nature of my existence is irrelevant to my existence itself, so no need to bring up lines of inquiry like "well how do you know you really exist and are not a sprite in a big computer game?" If it turns out I am a sprite in a computer game, I still exist albeit as a sprite in a computer game.

The world has already ended twice in my lifetime as far as I'm aware. Once on January 1, 2000, the great Y2K disaster that would cause toasters and coffee machines to rise up against their masters as outlined by Nostradamus 600 years ago in very precise, crystal-clear and unambiguous terms. The second time was on May 5, 2000, the Grand Planetary Alignment when Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Earth would form a straight line with the sun, and since we all know from basic Pseudoscience 101 that the force of gravity multiplies itself exponentially when objects are in a line, our planet has been torn asunder by immense tidal forces. Can't wait for the third time the world comes to an end. A couple of calendars halt in 2012 so you know that just has to mean something more.

Life on other planets. Can't prove it, but I'm pretty sure they're out there, flying around in enormous intergalactic battlecruisers and engaging in all manner of destructive high-tech warfare...and we're missing out on all the fun!

IIRC, both Newton and Leibniz used the concept of an infinitesimal to derive the derivative. The modern definition of limit didn't come around until Cauchy ~150 years later.

University of California, Berkeley. Among other things, Cal named several of the latter "unnatural" elements of the periodic table, including berkelium, (for Berkeley of course), californium (for University of California) and lawrencium (named for Edward Lawrence, former professor at Cal and inventor of the cyclotron). Also, geologist Walter Alvarez, who came up with the theory that the dinosaurs were wiped out by an asteroid after discovering the iridium layer in the KT-boundary of the fossil record is a Cal professor. I actually met the man while I was an undergrad, but he seemed less interested in talking about his achievements and more excited about telling us how a close friend of his tried out to be a contestant on that TV show Survivor, and how he was thinking of doing the same. As a geologist, he's probably got the field experience necessary to win.

Good one. You don't need more than high school math to get it. You're kidding, right?

Most humans can't calculate formula or create vaccinations either. I don't know what you mean by "real" societies, but dolphins do have social groups with their own varied cultures. Many human societies are arguably as rudimentary as dolphin pods in terms of technological progress. It can probably be argued that dolphins do not build the many things we build simply because they don't desire what we desire. Living in an ocean obviously has vastly different requirements. I think it would be premature to judge a dolphin's intelligence just because we don't see the immediate results of it. More research into their intelligence is called for.

Anarchy as a political term just means lack of government authority. It doesn't stop people from collaborating and forming other non-government institutions that have authority, or that can impose authority and prevent others from doing as they please. This is irrelevant to the discussion though, as your claim that abolishing CP would cause a society to degenerate into anarchy is rather baseless. If anything, here in America, the right-wing often accuse the many left-leaning countries of Europe (the ones that have abolished CP) of having too much government, quite the opposite of anarchy. You cannot assume that just because we aren't all killers that CP has deterred us. To assume so begs the question.

If only it were legal to own a dolphin, I'd do my own limited pet science. =) African grey parrots have been taught to associate phonetic sounds with letter symbols on paper, which is the first step toward reading. I'd like to see if dolphins are capable of such a feat, except instead of using letters on paper, it would probably be necessary to use 3-dimensional objects that dolphins can use their sonar on to "read." If they're smarter than parrots, they should pick it up faster.

I am skeptical of any claims of CP's deterrence effect, as there is no real empirical way to measure the effect that isn't overtly problematic. I am particularly skeptical of claims CP provides a deterrence here in America, since the only type of murder that qualifies for CP is first-degree; that is murder which is planned, calculated and premeditated -- precisely the type of murder in which the murderer would take every precaution to ensure he doesn't get caught! Perhaps if CP were applied to "murders of passion," it might have a greater deterrence effect. Not that I would support it there either, but you'd have greater support for your argument. This forcible sacrifice for a cause principle is a very troublesome one. Where is the line drawn? If we can save a dozen lives by forcibly harvesting organs from one person against their will, should we? It's for a good cause. (Now before anyone accuse me of commiting a "slippery slope" fallacy, note that it is not fallacious in this context because Artorius hasn't drawn a clear line of demarcation as to what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable forced sacrifice.)

That failure to employ capital punishment on murderers is unjust doesn't really follow from your definitions. You need to identify what criteria are used to determine "merit." Justice would assign merited punishments to a murderer, but before you conclude that this entails capital punishment, you'd need to explain how it was determined that capital punishment met the "merit" criteria. You'll find that merit critera varies from individual to individual. My personal objection to capital punishment is primarily a pragmatic one. The punishment does not, in my opinion, accomplish anything useful except to satisfy some people's emotions on the matter, which is a poor criterion for dishing out a penalty. I don't doubt that if someone I loved or cared about was killed, I would want the killer to die a horrible, excruciating death by brutal torture. But this is an emotional appeal, and not a good basis for policy. In addition, to send one innocent person to death, even by accident, is morally reprehensible because such a death was unnecessary and easily avoidable if society didn't feel the need to carry out a pointless act. I'm not sure I follow this. I understand the "infinite" debt and the invaluableness of life, but how does taking a life "repay" anything? Maybe if you believe in Karma and that "life for a life" somehow balances out the cosmos. But these kinds of quantitative comparisons in a non-quantitative context can lead to bizarre results. I could argue that the best way to "repay" a taken life would be to create a new one -- should death row inmates then be forced to have children? It's probably best to avoid moral or cosmic "balancing equations" of this sort.

It's nice of you to presume that those of us who oppose the death penalty are necessarily in favor of giving convicts lavish amenities. A solution I propose for your problem here is to campaign for prison reform so that TVs and University Degrees are not handed out at your expense. As someone else mentioned in this thread, it'd be great if prisons were self-sustaining. Hell, let NASA do research on self-sufficient communities using prison populations. It'll help out with future manned deep space travel. If I was ever wrongly (or even rightly, but that's doubtful) convicted of a crime, I'd at least be happy to make this contribution to science.

In the U.S. we only execute people for murder one or treason. Not that this is a good thing, but at least we certainly wouldn't execute Martha Stewart. Here is the story: http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=80 http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=137 It's changed multiple times since I first heard it. The first time I heard it, she was a rape victim who was hung for "tempting" the rapist. This story here says she was hung for her "sharp tongue" (she talked back to a high cleric). That's a little different, but it's still a very, very bad reason to execute a 16 year old girl. Regarding the US putting to death child offenders, you're right. I find it morally reprehensible, but I wouldn't know how to begin contrasting that with executing non-violent offenders or disprespectful young girls.

chadn is right. I live in California, a very liberal state especially with regard to gun laws, and yet you ARE allowed to shoot people on your property if you believe they may pose a threat. Just a few months ago a man in my area shot and killed a burglar who had nothing but a crowbar on him. The police and public attorneys said he was justified and filed no charges. The shooter was very remorseful on TV, and I felt sorry for him. I can't say I'd be entirely happy killing a man with a crowbar either, but it's certainly not unjustified. Of course, this is within reason. As Chief Wiggum said to Homer Simpson when he thought he could get away with shooting Ned Flanders on his property: "It doesn't work if you invite them over."

I didn't realize murderous tendencies were genetic. Tell me, what about murderers who already had children before they were put on death row? Should we take their kids out? We don't want them moyda genes in our pool. I agree with your general premise here, but America isn't as bad as some of these four. China puts people to death for shoplifting. Iran puts young girls to death for being rape victims. That's right, the victim gets the death penalty for "tempting" the rapist. As far as the topic of this thread, I oppose the death penalty. I am unconvinced of its ability to deter or of its moral justness. This is not to say I oppose killing in dire scenarios such as police use of force on an armed suspect -- there's a clear unequivocal difference between that and killing someone who no longer poses a threat. Also, in rare instances where the convict wishes to die for his crimes, I'd be OK with obliging, but that's more a right to die issue than a death penalty one.

OK, that was admittedly a bad example on my part. I didn't give it enough thought; ln(0) is not defined from R->R, and I should have known better. Also not sure what you're trying to say about functions. But moving right along, there are still plenty of valid reasons why 0/0 = 0 is not well-defined. Try this one: Let c be a nonzero constant, and let 0/0 = 0. Then: 0/0 = 0 (0*c)/0 = 0 0*(c/0) = 0 c/0 = 0/0 c/0 = 0 c = 0*0 c = 0 Contradiction.

I'm not up to speed with the specifics of American voting history, but I'm pretty sure the Dixiecrats stopped voting Democrat and started voting Republican after the 60s. Guys like Zel Miller are Democrats in name only.

Even your attempt at a metaphysical loophole refutation implicitly accepts the law of identity. What are "experience," "metaphysics," "thoughts," and "processes?" Without the law of identity, you can't be certain that experience is experience, metaphysics is metaphysics, thoughts are thoughts and processes are processes. None of these things have identity, thus they are nothing at all.

Philosophy still must answer to reason. You'll find that few to no philosophers would reject the three basic laws of thought: identity (A is A), non-contradiction (A cannot be not A), and the excluded middle (either A or not A, but not both or neither). These axioms are self-evident in that any attempt to refute them relies on them being true. You claim that something can be simultaneously true and false, which violates non-contradiction (A is not not A => true is not not true => true is not false). You must refute the law of non-contradiction before your claim can be valid. But the law of non-contradiction is the tool we use to refute things to begin with. You refute things by showing that they are contradictory, thus the only way to refute the law of non-contradiction is to use the law of non-contradiction against itself. But in doing so, you implicitly accept that the law is true.

You cannot refute the laws of identity and non-contradiction without utilizing them. In doing so, you accept that they are true. Also, if you accept that contradictions are true or real, you must also accept that contradictions are false or unreal. Think about it.