tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-414946164942126209.post2120790733476224618..comments2024-03-29T07:00:27.146-04:00Comments on Encyclopedia of American Loons: #2252: David ShormannG.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/08875360501107597863noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-414946164942126209.post-12626633299010632902021-08-12T04:55:54.763-04:002021-08-12T04:55:54.763-04:00Of all the idiotic comments I have seen, this one ...Of all the idiotic comments I have seen, this one is close to being the most helpless.<br /><br />First, you evidently don't have the faintest clue what deductive or inductive reasoning is, or what the distinction could possibly be. You really should read a book. I'll give you the exam question right away, though: A common way of distinguishing deductive from inductive inferences is doing so by invoking the monotonicity property of inferences. Explain what that means, and discuss whether that's a good way of drawing the distinction (especially in light of Bayesian updates, epistemic logics and the probability calculus). <br /><br />Second, Shormann's failure is understanding the basic dynamics of scientific testing of hypotheses against observation: You start with a hypothesis about something non-observed or non-observable, then you derive predictions from that hypothesis about observable consequences (i.e., if this hypothesis about the non-observed is true, what would be the observable consequences today?). Then you check whether those consequences obtain. If they do, you have confirmed your hypothesis; if they don't, you have disconfirmed it. (And then you can note the famous and familiar point that given this schema, disconfirmation by observation is a deductive process and confirmation an inductive one - you know, the point that Popper took as his point of departure when he argued that science only needs deductive reasoning).<br /><br />And the point is that this schema draws no distinction between "historical" and "observational" sciences or Shormann's delusions. The Big Bang is not observable, but the Big Bang hypothesis has observable consequences that we use to test it, and which have provided staggering confirmation. Similarly with, say, all laws of physics or all hypotheses about causal relations, regardless of your field (which are not observable either). The hypothesis that the Earth was created in seven days (with organisms appearing just a few days after creation) and the hypothesis that there has been a global flood, for instance, also have a plethora of observable consequences. But these consequences don't obtain, which means that these hypotheses have been profoundly refuted.<br /><br />Third, you evidently don't understand burden of proof. If I claim that "Bears are really aliens, and that is true", the burden of proof isn't on others to disprove it! If you think a claim is true, you have to provide the evidence. G.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08875360501107597863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-414946164942126209.post-48486244381166210682021-08-11T12:05:35.998-04:002021-08-11T12:05:35.998-04:00Dang, you really are an idiot G.D., i thought you ...Dang, you really are an idiot G.D., i thought you would have since enough to know that true science is inductive reasoning, not deductive. See for deductive anyone can say anything and it can be a valid point, but it's not always true. but inductive is observation, with facts. If you want to argue that we can't prove that the bible is real without using eve=idence from the bible, then prove that it isn't true, without deductive reasoning. The burden of proof is on you. Because since the beginning the bible has been said to be true, so if you disagree you must show how it's false.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01109640463663941056noreply@blogger.com