8
epiffanie, on 19 June 2012 - 08:33 PM, said:
1. Logic is a systemtic approach with premises in order to come to a conlusion leaving out any type of emotion. Logic is not picking up a science book and reading it and saying this is true because the book says so.
I can say green cats jump off buildings in the winter. Because the cat is green he will jump off the building in the winter. Because the premise is true, the conclusion is true. But how many of us actually seen a green cat jump off a building in the winter? My point is this guy talking about logic seems to type very eloquently, but seems pretty close minded. So if you want to talk about logic, understand what it means first.
I can say green cats jump off buildings in the winter. Because the cat is green he will jump off the building in the winter. Because the premise is true, the conclusion is true. But how many of us actually seen a green cat jump off a building in the winter? My point is this guy talking about logic seems to type very eloquently, but seems pretty close minded. So if you want to talk about logic, understand what it means first.
Assuming that's directed at me, unless you're going back further, the referrals I made to logic were not applications of it but comments on his misuse of same, rather like your cute little attempt at an ad homonum there, which is both wrong as a logical fallacy and based on a faulty premise. One was quite clearly referring to his use of an apparent straw man argument in that it was so far removed from the idea it was taken from as to amount to the same thing. And that's without going into the digression about children in the street he tacked on at the end.
He's been doing that right along, using appeals to popularity for instance, etc., and his entire argument is based on flawed comparisons and reasoning yet strangely I don't see you calling him on any of it.
Quote
2. Comparing the speed of a rock in a car moving 100 mph is not a very good comparison to the way light moves. So if you are trying to say the emission of light does not change, thats a bad example because the speed of a rock can change depending on how hard its thrown, percipation, wind, angle. How is comparing the two even logical?
It's called an analogy. You know what that is, right? Planets don't have brakes or accelerators or lose control on slick patches either yet the original analogy I was expanding on still holds as an expression of relative velocity. Likewise mine was intended solely and explicitly to address the notion of imparted velocity, which it did adequately. Implied ideal conditions should've been assumed, as made explicit in the preceding example with the gun. I could add however that gravity, angle and refraction all effect light as well.
Quote
3. Wikipedia is a very very very unreliable source.
A generalization, after all this talk about logic? For some things maybe but not for all. There's nothing I used that wasn't cited from an external source.
Quote
These are just things to think about, using logic, not using the ever changing "facts" in a science book. I have nothing against science, but u think if they were really trying to hide something from us, they would put it right there in a book that you can purchase anywhere?
Logic is dependent on facts. As available facts change, so does the conclusion.
Edited by Oniomancer, 20 June 2012 - 03:37 AM.
"Parts of the other two". So far there's no reason for me to believe those carvings are more than one "part". 
Why do you think anyone would "add" parts without removing what was there already? Do you think they cared enough to do some carving in stone, but not enough to make the final product what they intended it to be simply because they were too lazy to remove what was there to begin with??? 
