6 ms·

Some hints: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik

Some hints: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venn_diagram https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venn_diagram https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic_(psychology) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic_(psychology) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-valued_logic https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-valued_logic https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proving_a_negative https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proving_a_negative https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness (that which is actually being described) - see also: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2005/12/29/the-perils-of-javaschools-2/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2005/12/29/the-perils-of-java...

TeMPOraL 3y ago
Counterhint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_statistics
- mistermann 3y ago
  "where probability expresses a degree of belief in an event". I'm generally ok with beliefs, provided they are realized as such.
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    Logic as applied to the real world is just beliefs too; using probability for the math is a way to account for uncertainty, instead of rounding everything up or down to impossible standards of "true" or "false".
    - mistermann 3y ago
      > Logic as applied to the real world is just beliefs too I disagree. For example: how can humans operating on scientific principles so consistently stack hundreds of "just" beliefs on top of each other to achieve things like landing things on the moon, as just one very old example? I suspect there is more to it....I believe that all beliefs are not equal, and I'll go even further: some beliefs are true, and some beliefs are not true. > using probability for the math is a way to account for uncertainty That "account for" has a different meaning than "perfectly resolve" seems highly relevant. > instead of rounding everything up or down to impossible standards of "true" or "false" Of the two of us, who is rounding things up or down to an artificial truth?
dekhn 3y ago
necessity and sufficiency is insufficient (and not necessary) in biology. I've attended talks where the system was complex enough that something (a molecular factor) was sufficient, but not necessary! Pure logic isn't useful in biology because it's a feedback-controlled system with an enormous number of internal states.
- mistermann 3y ago
  Does it not illustrate that the person making the assertion either hasn't considered that their explanation is not necessarily exhaustive (in fact, as opposed to according to current theories within a popular, not entirely genuine/consistent in behavior at this point in time ideology), or would like you to believe that it is? If there is a way to prove it is necessarily exhaustive, I would like to hear it.

TeMPOraL 3y ago

Counterhint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_statistics

mistermann 3y ago
"where probability expresses a degree of belief in an event". I'm generally ok with beliefs, provided they are realized as such.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  Logic as applied to the real world is just beliefs too; using probability for the math is a way to account for uncertainty, instead of rounding everything up or down to impossible standards of "true" or "false".
  - mistermann 3y ago
    > Logic as applied to the real world is just beliefs too I disagree. For example: how can humans operating on scientific principles so consistently stack hundreds of "just" beliefs on top of each other to achieve things like landing things on the moon, as just one very old example? I suspect there is more to it....I believe that all beliefs are not equal, and I'll go even further: some beliefs are true, and some beliefs are not true. > using probability for the math is a way to account for uncertainty That "account for" has a different meaning than "perfectly resolve" seems highly relevant. > instead of rounding everything up or down to impossible standards of "true" or "false" Of the two of us, who is rounding things up or down to an artificial truth?

dekhn 3y ago

necessity and sufficiency is insufficient (and not necessary) in biology. I've attended talks where the system was complex enough that something (a molecular factor) was sufficient, but not necessary! Pure logic isn't useful in biology because it's a feedback-controlled system with an enormous number of internal states.

mistermann 3y ago
Does it not illustrate that the person making the assertion either hasn't considered that their explanation is not necessarily exhaustive (in fact, as opposed to according to current theories within a popular, not entirely genuine/consistent in behavior at this point in time ideology), or would like you to believe that it is? If there is a way to prove it is necessarily exhaustive, I would like to hear it.