you could always represent ravens by their genetic code, and
possible--though I think no--prove that for an animal to be within the
defenition of the species.. hmm.. looks like this is turning into something
other than induction. And having just seen a D- (as opposed to B) horror
movie on tnt, I think I'll stop.
>>Were you describing more common logical error made by many (lesser <g>)
>>people in their models of reality?
>
>Yes, synthetic (empirical) induction is logically invalid. But the invalid
>part if assuming that you can prove assertions from it, rather than
>generate provisional assumptions.
The invalidity of this synthetic induction is so deep in my model, that I
could not imagine anyone using it. Then I remembered I don't have the
absolute truth. And also people like my roomate's girlfriend exist.
(1) Recently we were explaing to her the concept of speed. unsuccessfully.
very unsuccessfully. Tommorrow, we will work on fractions and the atomic
model of physics. (2) I have noticed her irrationality memes are very good
at ignoring/difusing attempts at rational infiltration. (3) I am intrigued
that she exists--for there must be millions like her, which means there are
massive segments of the population who think on... a different level.
tom its four inteh morning and my thoughts might be disjointed holz
=|="Hey everyone, we're free! Yes! We can do anything we want! Any
conceivable thing at all!
=|=...Let's show off how wealthy we are, and have sex."
=|= -Dave Pape