studiot

One year we went to the dutch Efteling theme park. There were lots of bins proclaiming loudly "Papier Hier" (Perhaps @Eise will sort my spellin ?" as you passed I think they also said "Dank u Vell" if you put something in. We all thought them a great idea, but I didn't notice the sentiment carried on outside the gate into the rest of Holland. When I still a boy, my grown up cousin was very close to another dutch family. So I learned that Holland was the only other country that (then) built what we called council houses. I also learned that they had council house tenants that acted in the same way as our worst ones so they built some houses completed out of concrete, furniture included and said "If you won't keep the place clean and tidy we will. Once a week we will wash the place out with a fire hose whether you are in there or not". I understand this was very effective.

I already gave you a 'road map' to explore induction v deduction in your other thread. However since you are still hazy here is another road map for you to follow. As can bee seen there are several meanings to the terms induce and induction, just within Mathematics and Philisophy/Logic. At the bottom of the right hand page (291) there is a more general term - inference which is used even more widely than induction I would add imply as well. Which brings me to Scientific Inference H Jeffreys Cambridge University press. Here are a couple of extracts about induction more widely that are worth reading. The theory of what is called first order induction, as in the first attachment above, will be found in Lemon. The full theory, including the so called induction axioms, of what is called second order or probabilistic induction will be found in Computability and Logic Boolos and Jeffrey (no s at the end this time) Cambridge University press A further type of induction - transfinite induction, will be found in any good number theory or foundations of mathematics book eg Stewart and Tall

Whilst I agree with mistermack's sentiment, I think he is being a bit overdramatic. So my answer to the above question is very firmly I don't want to pay to clean up rubbish that I wouldn't dream of leaving. Yes it is better for the litterer to pay cleaners than be prosecuted. Let us face it, it took the serious illness of quite a few children and the deaths of some, followed by intensive prosecutions, before the message about dog's mess got through. Our streets and parks are now much better for it.

Absolutely first class observation that is so often forgotten when people discuss logical analysis. Paradoxes, conflicts etc so often arise because of an inappropriate combination of statements. +1

But do they really ? Then why do they just drop fag packets , wrappers etc as they are walking along ? They own these things but they do not wnat them. But what they also do not want is to own the problem thay they not only own them bu they are responsible for them. But I also missed out a factor in my previous post. The poor or bad examples set by, leaders and other well respected members in the community. This extends beyond litter but the real problem is the message being sent is that petty misdemeanous don't matter. Ther are plenty who are not interested in either the carrot or the stick. The motto of Peter Symond's School, Winchester is "Manners Maketh Man"

Can I recommend EJ Lemmon's book Beginnibng Logic. It is good because Lemmon goes into both the formal logic and maths way of presenting statements and compare them. His style is very clear and easy to follow.

I'm not sure what you mean about vertically aligned about the equals but I agree that I find the smae letter sizing problem when I paste in. This never used to happen, but started here about one improving update ago. My solution is to highlight the offending formula in TEX and change the font size in the site input editor box.

I can't agree with those who think enough people are public spirited enough to keep places basically litter free. The issue has to be a mix of education and enforcement of both those who create unwanted items (trash) and those who spread it. Just go to any school in the UK and watch what happens at chucking out time. Kids unwrapping someinthing and dropping wrappers immediately as they walk. No attempt to find a bin or store the 'trash' for later disposal. Older people used to just flick cigarette butts, matches, vaping canisters anywhere along their path. After I returned from a holiday a few years ago I remarked that I had spent a very pleasant day in Munich, and what a clean city it was. I had only seen 3 pieces of litter the entire day in a city of 3 million people. My friend said yes its clean because of the fines. Harry went out for the night, drank too much and was fined 50 marks (on the spot) for vomiting in a taxi.

Gosh and I though that some scholars received a thorough grounding in the classics. Forget the word even in its scientific use it has nothing to do with whatever you are asking about. You might like to be informed that mechanics and electrics are different sciences following different physical laws. You cannot explain all of mechanics in terms of electrics or all of electrics in terms of mechanics. That is why science recognises four fundamental forces operating in the universe , gravity and the 'electric force' being two of them. But then that is only when working within the force model of things. There are several other models with different interpretations.

Why would a truly irreligous scientist know or care how many persons or persons 'wrote' the bible or how many books, chapters, gospels, appendices, apochripahas etc it has ? I'm sorry if my oblique references were too obscure for you.

I don't see how this represents a chain of reasoning explaining how you get from my demonstrating that there is more than one meaning to the word grounding to your assertion that Surely you can see that many implications could result from from my demonstration. So it is encumbent upon your own goodself to sift through and discard inappropriate ones before asserting anything ? In fact the correct implication is that scientists use particular definitions of many if not most words so that they are not confused with everyday definitions or if there are multiple definitions the appropriate one is chosen. Exactly so +1

Try reading through again what I have said to both yourself and Genady very carefully. A point I was trying to make is that there is plenty of theory that comes before deduction / induction. None of that is repeated in the definitions or theorems of deduction / induction, but it is all still potentially applicable. For instance what is a deducton from a premise ? Its structure is antecedent- connective - conclusion So here goes 3 plus five makes eight. Therefore Uranus is closer to the Sun than the Earth. This introduces the idea of sound v unsound reasoning. The premise is true, there is a connective, yet the conclusion is false Because the reasoning is unsound. This also works the other way.

Can you please explain in detail the steps of reasoning that led you to this curious conclusion. I would conclude something quite different from the information you have supplied. Please note for the record I am referring solely to grounding, not balloons, walls, forces, balanced etc.

No. A child that has misbehaved my be 'grounded' , but that is also an entirely different non scientific usage. I agree the experiment is not relevant to this thread, any more than most of your posting. However I also observe that you appear from your responses not to have understood it. Firstly Millikan's experiment was to measure the ratio of charge to mass of the electron, not the charge or the mass. Secondly the oil drop experiment did confirm Faraday's electrochemical experiment that there is a fundamental unit of charge that the charge always changes in integer multiples of. Millakan's book is a masterpiece of patient experiment - observation - deduction.

@exchemistI declaire you sockhunter extra ordinaire. Yes, I have yet to see any science in this thread. I thought that the Religion section here was supposed to host scientific aspects of religion, not religous content. There are huge discrepancies beween certain 'books', particularly in the old testament. Scientifically we can trace this to the fact that in the centuries BC there were two widely separated centres of jewish culture where the books were authored. Alexandria and Jerusalem. Further the Alexandria versions were written in Greek and the Jerusalem ones in Hebrew Most of our translations stem from the Greek version, I suspect because there were more Greek scholars than hebrew ones , years ago. There is a postgraduate course somewhere in Kent where you can study these things. Also the point about 'sin' is what led to the legal doctrine of 'criminal intent'. Can an idiot sin if she is incapable knowing what sin is ?

Did you only read my first line ?

Why don't you ask the man who wrote the bible ? This is a science site, how do you expect us to know ?

1)Why not ? It is an example (there are many) where your claim that either A is true or not A is true is violated. 2) What about the answer I gave to your actual question ?

Thank you that is what I said many moons ago.

Gosh I feel the judgement of Solomon is called for in the light of diametriclly opposite answere so far. Noha you have mentioned 'context' in many of your questions so far. This is good because I feel this is the key to the answer to your question. Both biologists and mathematicians are (well some are) good scientists. They are good because both are aware that any scientific analysis depends upon the conditions (the context). Biologists embrace these nuances within their scheme of things and let the reader decide what is and is not in context. Mathematicians incorporate context into their statements limiting what unwanted nuances through the 'domain of definition' or boundary conditions etc. Just different approaches to the same problem. Does this help ?

That's the whole point in maths. You need the apparatus of maths to perform the induction. Either by set theory or setting an equivalent condition or constraint. There is a whole cadre of mathematicians who refuse to accept any inductive proof as a result.

Unlike French, there is no 'authority' that tries to control what is and what is not good English. The nearest we come is The Oxford English Dictionary. The OED, particularly the longer versions, draw from usage stretching back to before Shakespeare up to and including just before the annual updating as examples of 'correct English' I am sure that at least 60 years ago people were using and/or and that I understood it at that time. So that is good enough for me. That is another strength of Ennglish - It is not hidebound by stuffy rules and regulations.

What a pity Imatfaal is no longer active as both a qualified legal professional and a talented amateur scientist he would have been the ideal member to answer this. Legal people often have very penetrating thought processes and this question is largely about thought processes. Anyway deduction / Induction is a good topic to introduce (I will use that word again later) so +1 Both words are very important in many scientific disciplines and, as often happens, each discipline tailors the specific meaning to its own requirements. Thankfully as far as I know everyone within a given scientific discipline agrees that meaning, unlike some terms. Thank you for outlining what perhaps some legal system means by it, I was not aware of such a difference between science and the legal world. But beware that legal systems can vary enormously in different parts of the world so what holds good in one country may not pertain in another. We see that the words are important in English because they appear equally as the noun, verb and adjective, but all spring from the same root the Latin duco to lead. The Greeks actually developed both concepts before the Romans but the Romans introduced both deductivus and inductivus. The difference is that Induction is usually associated with introducing (I said I'd use that word again) the consequent, perhaps by some sort of causation or forcing of it. The consequent could stand alone from the introduction, which is important in maths. Whereas deduction requires no such additional help, the consequent being inherent in the antecedent or premise(s). Which means that so long as you have the antecedent the consequent is there, whether you acknowledge it or not. Philosophy examines the situation whe Philosophy examines what happens when this is not true, maths does not, except in a few very special circumstances.

6 is divisible by 2 as well as 3 ! Interestingly this example demonstrates the power of the English language compared to Maths or Philosophy (Which or did I mean ? I could also have said and/or) English provides many ways to express something, very often allowing for small differences and gradations of meaning. Note I said 'as well as' instead of 'or', or 'both 2 and 3'.

I have no more proof that you are genuine or a clever troll, than you have for any of the outrageous and unsubstantiated claims you have made here. But I do find your response style to anyone who genuinely tries to answer your questions reminiscent of a now banned member who claimed to be a philosopher living in Hong Kong. To whit ignore the offered explanation and introduce further irrelevant or outrageous statements.