I don't believe you

[jmccr8]

4 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

yep they do, but some use subconscious processing to avoid consciously thinking about it.

Hi Walker

I don't because it is not important enough to think about and I don't avoid consciously thinking about it, it just doesn't merit a reason to.

8 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

A human cant do ANYTHING which requires planning, without some form of mental processing ie thinking 

I am going to get up and pour a coffee my feet will take me there and back and I will pour the coffee and add sugar with no concerns as to spilling tripping or not adding enough sugar the only thought I had was get a coffee everything else is motor memory no thought or faith involved.

11 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Your faith in surviving subconsciously releases you from the need to worry (Thats kinda the point I am making) 

No faith; ie belief in a positive outcome, before we can KNOW what that outcome will be

I have faith in myself because that is a known and will do what needs to be done which is also a known the fact that things can and do go sideways doesn't matter because I am the active factor, I neither have faith that things will go well or bad I just deal with what is.

14 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

You believe(in faith) that this plane will not crash, and you will not die. That takes faith.  

No because for me it does not matter, if I am going to die it doesn't matter if it is a plane that falls out of the sky or my body played out I am going to die when, where, how are of no interest to me because I am alive now and when I am dead there won't be any thinking going on so why worry? Because I have faith in myself anything else is insignificant.

jmccr8

[+Hammerclaw]

1 hour ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

WARNING!You have come dangerously close to mentioning "he who shall not be named!"

This is your only warning! Further infractions will result in you imprisonment with Gilbert Godfrey, for a period of no less than 20 years!

 

I locked him in a closet with a hungry Hannibal Lecter. Or was it SpongeBob?

[+Sherapy]

55 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Yup But if you  lacked faith that oyu would survive the night you wouldn't go to bed  

Plus, of course, while you might not consider all this consciously, your mind is busy calculating odds, making itself  promises and being optimistic. Your faith is so strong that you  don't even think about it consciously, you just act upon it.  

In other words, you are not the simple 'home boy" you present yourselves as.  

You are projecting. I travel by plane a lot and I get the risk, I know the odds, one flys enough they don’t think about it, like Jay said one boards and looks forward to your destination, 

If the plane goes down well that is the risk one takes, like anything else.

I would rather live my life to the fullest, then sit home afraid to do anything for fear of.

 

[eight bits]

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

You CANNOT have evidences that the particular plane you are on will fly safely and arrive safely, BEFORE the event 

So, why would I bother about not having information that I cannot have?

Instead, we might do what we can do with the information that is available.

Warning: the following paragraph states the breath-takingly obvious

We can construct a relevant reference class, for example scheduled commercial airline flights for the past five years. Next, we derive the pertinent statistics for that class with whatever precision makes sense, then use those class figures as a guide to responsible action.

It is true that class members do not "inherit" the class averages; the group numbers are not attributes of the individuals. So, we don't pretend to attribute class averages to the individual members of the class.

However, we most certainly can reasonably treat all members of a reference class uniformly according to the class figures. We know that that decision strategy works, because it is the basis of insurance in the private sector, and we observe that companies which apply the strategy prosper.

Insurance companies do not rely on faith when insuring the flight; why on earth must I rely on faith to board it?

 

 

 

Edited May 20, 2019 by eight bits

[Mr Walker]

24 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

You are projecting. I travel by plane a lot and I get the risk, I know the odds, one flys enough they don’t think about it, like Jay said one boards and looks forward to your destination, 

If the plane goes down well that is the risk one takes, like anything else.

I would rather live my life to the fullest, then sit home afraid to do anything for fear of.

 

Not projecting. Simply explaining the way human cognition works.

You and jmcr8 may not be as mindful as some,  but you are human.

You cant walk, let alone make a coffee, or take a plane flight, without thinking abut it . You can try to put things out of your mind which is another form of defence mechanism.The y can become so mundane that you dont consciously think about them   But still if you didn't have faith that  the plane you are boarding would travel safely you could not fly  Imagine if you had no faith or confidence in an aeroplane travelling safely. Are you saying you would fly, even so?  No, you would not be able to. .

You know the risks and you  know you cant predict the future, thus your mind has evolved a mechanism we call faith to protect you from this knowledge, and allow you to keep on going, despite your mind knowing all the dangers of life

you explain yourself well but don't seem to realise that  taking a risk requires faith.  If you had NO faith you would never take a risk. Having faith your plane will not crash allows you  to take the risk of flying.   If you had NO fear, because you had no knowledge  of life's dangers, then you would not need faith 

 

[+Hammerclaw]

36 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

You are projecting. I travel by plane a lot and I get the risk, I know the odds, one flys enough they don’t think about it, like Jay said one boards and looks forward to your destination, 

If the plane goes down well that is the risk one takes, like anything else.

I would rather live my life to the fullest, then sit home afraid to do anything for fear of.

 

Terri use say--What's the point of being alive if you can't live? I never had a snappy rejoinder for that one! 

[+Hammerclaw]

4 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Not projecting. Simply explaining the way human cognition works.

You and jmcr8 may not be as mindful as some,  but you are human.

You cant walk, let alone make a coffee, or take a plane flight, without thinking abut it . You can try to put things out of your mind which is another form of defence mechanism.The y can become so mundane that you dont consciously think about them   But still if you didn't have faith that  the plane you are boarding would travel safely you could not fly  Imagine if you had no faith or confidence in an aeroplane travelling safely. Are you saying you would fly, even so?  No, you would not be able to. .

You know the risks and you  know you cant predict the future, thus your mind has evolved a mechanism we call faith to protect you from this knowledge, and allow you to keep on going, despite your mind knowing all the dangers of life

you explain yourself well but don't seem to realise that  taking a risk requires faith.  If you had NO faith you would never take a risk. Having faith your plane will not crash allows you  to take the risk of flying.   If you had NO fear, because you had no knowledge  of life's dangers, then you would not need faith 

 

It requires no Faith at all, only fatalistic acceptance of the turn of the wheel. One can drag one's feet all one wants but, eventually life ends, one way or the other.

[danydandan]

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Give one example of what you mean.

I use (formal and informal)  logic in everything. 

However logic is a process.

Thus the the outcome of logical thinking varies with the staring  point.

Logic can't lead you to a fact or truth unless the original starting point is correct. 

This comment right here, is an example of not understanding logic. 

[Mr Walker]

1 minute ago, eight bits said:

So, why would I bother about not having information that I cannot have?

Instead, we might do what we can do with the information that is available. We can construct a relevant reference class, for example scehduled commercial airline flights for the past five years. Next, we derive the pertinent statistics for that class with whatever precision makes sense, then use those class figures as a guide to responsible action.

It is true that class members do not "inherit" the class averages; the group numbers are not attributes of the individuals. So, we don't pretend to attribute class averages to the individual members of the class.

However, we most certainly can reasonably treat all members of a reference class uniformly according to the class figures. We know that that decision strategy works, because it is the basis of insurance in the private sector, and we observe that companies which apply the strategy prosper.

Insurance companies do not rely on faith when insuring the flight; why on earth must I rely on faith to board it?

 

 

 

You should NOT be bothered, because  no matter how much data you accumulate there is no certainty of the plane's safe passage The flight is in the future, which is unknown. Thus you MUST act on the basis of your faith in the plane and it's pilots 

NONE of the things you mention mean a thing in the flight you are on. They were also true to, and for, all the people who have died over the last decade on commercial airlines

No you cannot ascertain with certainty, or even probability,  what WILL happen on your flight. You have past histories and probabilities but they are no guarantee or proof that your flight will survive. Thus, again, you can ONLY fly because you have faith in the outcome of the flight, faith that the future will occur as you hope it will.  Faith that your plane will NOT be one which crashes.  

You mus t rely on faith because you are human and are making a cognitive decision without knowing the outcome of that decision.This can ONLY be done using faith  Insurance companies deal in past statistics, which have no bearing on what will happen on your flight.

Insurance ratings didn't help those who died in the  last decade or two,  despite flying being statistically safe 

Only about 13 plane crashes this century are known to have been caused by pilot suicide Statistically insignificant, yet several many people died in those crashes

 

Ps i am not trying to scare people off flying. It is hundreds of times safer than driving an automobile.

My point is that humans are aware of potential futures and possible multiple outcomes of our choices  Thus we can only act in the now using faith that the future will be good for us.    

[Mr Walker]

10 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Terri use say--What's the point of being alive if you can't live? I never had a snappy rejoinder for that one! 

It depends how you define living Happiness and comfort come from within and so the best way to live is the way which allows you to have a happy, contented mind

You dont need material luxuries for this, just the abilty to adjust your mind to your circumstances. 

[Mr Walker]

19 minutes ago, danydandan said:

This comment right here, is an example of not understanding logic. 

No its not . It describes the nature and use of logic perfectly  So, again, explain your reasoning 

quote

Deductive reasoning, also deductive logic, logical deduction is the process of reasoning from one or more statements (premises) to reach a logically certain conclusion.^[1]

Deductive reasoning goes in the same direction as that of the conditionals, and links premises with conclusions. If all premises are true, the terms are clear, and the rules of deductive logic are followed, then the conclusion reached is necessarily true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning

See the point i made

IF all premises are true, the conclusion will be true. But many people begin with different premises as a truth. And then the process leads  to incorrect conclusions  Another problem is clarity of terms in non mathematical areas of logic. 

So, what problem do you see with my statement?

It is technically correct and unless you understand the nature of logic it will let you down badly. (logic in maths is easy(simple)  while logic in philosophy is much more complex, with other disciplines falling in between ) 

quote

Deductive Logic

Deductive reasoning concerns what follows necessarily from given premises (i.e. from a general premise to a particular one). An inference is deductively valid if (and only if) there is no possible situation in which all the premises are true and the conclusion false. However, it should be remembered that a false premise can possibly lead to a false conclusion.

https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_logic.html

 

  

Edited May 20, 2019 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

24 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

It requires no Faith at all, only fatalistic acceptance of the turn of the wheel. One can drag one's feet all one wants but, eventually life ends, one way or the other.

What requires no faith at all?.

Due to the nature of human self awareness, EVERY action of an adult human being requires a faith in the future (in specific and general things)  Without it we would do nothing and die.  As, indeed, an unfortunate number of human beings choose to do.  

 

[danydandan]

4 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

No its not . It describes the nature and use of logic perfectly  So, again, explain your reasoning 

quote

Deductive reasoning, also deductive logic, logical deduction is the process of reasoning from one or more statements (premises) to reach a logically certain conclusion.^[1]

Deductive reasoning goes in the same direction as that of the conditionals, and links premises with conclusions. If all premises are true, the terms are clear, and the rules of deductive logic are followed, then the conclusion reached is necessarily true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning

See the point i made

IF all premises are true, the conclusion will be true. But many people begin with different premises as a truth. And then the process leads  to incorrect conclusions  Another problem is clarity of terms in non mathematical areas of logic.  So, what problem do you see with my statement.It is technically correct and unless you understand the nature of logic it will let you down badly. (logic in maths is easy(simple)  while logic in philosophy is much more complex, with other disciplines falling in between ) 

quote

Deductive Logic

Deductive reasoning concerns what follows necessarily from given premises (i.e. from a general premise to a particular one). An inference is deductively valid if (and only if) there is no possible situation in which all the premises are true and the conclusion false. However, it should be remembered that a false premise can possibly lead to a false conclusion.

https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_logic.html

 

  

Still not showing me how you know anything about logic. 

Validity of a statement doesn't always have to start with true premise, in fact the same is true for scientific research and basic observations.

23 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Logic can't lead you to a fact or truth unless the original starting point is correct. 

This is what you said. Anyone with any inclination of logic would know it's logically incorrect. Your Google searches aren't helping you here.

 

[eight bits]

54 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

You should NOT be bothered, because  no matter how much data you accumulate there is no certainty of the plane's safe passage The flight is in the future, which is unknown. Thus you MUST act on the basis of your faith in the plane and it's pilots 

Mr Walker, you do not tell me what I MUST do to make a decision. I have explained to you how the decision could be made, and other posters have explained still other ways. None of these involve faith; it follows that the decision can be made without faith in the plane and its pilots.

We know this because another decision maker, an insurance provder. made a yoked decision (they win their bet on this flight just when I win my bet) with documented impersonal decision procedures (else they would not have the licence to sell the insurance, and they will lose that license if they are found to depart from  the approved impersonally documented method). Impersonal excludes faith.

I also wonder, in reading your posts on this point, whether you have any experience of life at all. Like everyboy else, I do things I fear on a routine basis. Note the present tense: I do things I fear to do at the same time that I'm doing them. I do them anyway, and not because I fancy I'll get away with it, but because I reckon that the thing is worth doing despite its potential for catastrophe.

This is news to you? And you're older than 13?

54 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

NONE of the things you mention mean a thing in the flight you are on.

Yes, now focus. All that matters for explaining my actual behavior is the decision policy I have adopted. You and I agree that information attributable to the flight I am on is unavailable. It follows that my decision policy is based on something else. That's an example of that logic thing you're so good at.

If somebody would like to apply their faith to the problem, then that's swell. I notice both chapels and mosques at airports; presumably somebody is using them, perhaps to get God on board their flight. But I don't, you see? Because I do not believe that faith can replace the information which I cannot have, I make the decision on a different basis altogether.

While I get it that you can't see inside my skull, we all can see how any publicly traded, government regulated insurance company operates. So we know that an alternative to the Walker method exists, and that it is applied by human beings to uncertain choices on a regular basis.

You aren't going to win this one, Mr Walker.

 

Edited May 20, 2019 by eight bits

[Mr Walker]

Just now, danydandan said:

Still not showing me how you know anything about logic. 

Validity of a statement doesn't always have to start with true premise, in fact the same is true for scientific research and basic observations.

This is what you said. Anyone with any inclination of logic would know it's logically incorrect. Your Google searches aren't helping you here.

 

I didnt say it HAD to start with a true premise. I said that the premise will lead to a certain conclusion through the  application of logical thinking.

If your premise is  false and you don't compensate for it, then it will lead to a conclusion which is true within the logic but untrue in reality.    You can use false statements /premises, to deliberately  test hypotheses and ideas.

My years of philosophy are helping me here. I just used google to show that i was correct. 

I would urge you to read the second of the sources I gave, which explains different  logical forms in detail. 

[Mr Walker]

Just now, eight bits said:

Mr Walker, you do not tell me what I MUST do to make a decision. I have explained to you how the decision could be made, and other posters have explained still other ways. None of these involve faith; it follows that the decision can be made without faith in the plane and its pilots.

We know this because another decision maker, an insurance provder. made a yoked decision (they win their bet on this flight just when I win my bet) with documented impersonal decision procedures (else they would not have the licence to sell the insurance, and they will lose that license if they are found to depart from  the approved impersonally documented method). Impersonal excludes faith.

I also wonder, in reading your posts on this point, whether you have any experience of life at all. Like everyboy else, I do things I fear on a routine basis. Note the present tense: I do things I fear to do that I fear at the same time that I'm doing them. I do them anyway, and not because I fancy I'll get away with it, but because I reckong that the thing is worth doing despite its potential for catastrophe.

This is news to you? And you're older than 13?

Yes, now focus. All that matters for explaining my actual behavior is the decision policy I have adopted. You and I agree that information attributable to the flight I am on is unavailable. It follows that my decision policy is based on something else. That's an example of that logic thing you're so good at.

If somebody would like to apply thier faith to the problem, then that's swell. I notice both chapels and mosques at airports; presumably somebody is using them, perhaps to get God on board their flight. But I don't, you see? Because I do not beleive that faith can replace the information which I cannot have, I make the decision on a different basis altogether.

While I get it that you can't see inside my skull, we all can see how any publicly traded, government regulated insurance company operates. So we know that an alternative to the Walker method exists, and that it is applied by human beings to uncertain choices on a regular basis.

You aren't going to win this one, Mr Walker.

 

Sorry but you must. That is the way your mind and cognition is evolved to operate and you cant do anything about it 

And indeed they all involve faith. You either are using too narrow a description of faith or just cant consciously realise this as yet 

You dont seem to get it 

faith enables you to do things you fear. Eg if you had NO faith or belief that you would survive an experience you would either not attempt it or do it seeking death.

Faith is an investment in your future and enables you to act when the future is unknown.

Your post suggest you are still thinking of faith in religious terms. I am not and have never been (as i pointed out previously)  Religious faith is one tiny sub segment of human faith . The greatest  atheist still requires faith in a survivable outcome,  to act without knowledge of the future, yet knowing that the future is coming and will result from  the behaviour we choose in the present.  

And you aren't getting tha t PAST experiences and actuarial statistics mean NOTHING when applied to the particular flight you are getting on (they are rally just other cognitive  means we use to allay our fears or concerns) 

 Clearly you have survived EVERY flight so far but that  means nothing about this flight. Clearly few people die in plane crashes but this mean NOTHING for this particular flight, because it still lies in the unforeseeable future. 

Well i cant win it if you dont accpet the terms of reference yet I am correct in what i say Humans have evolved faith as a cognitive protective measure to allow us to live with the knowledge we have about ourlseves and the world around us including our inevitable death and possible pain and suffering in the future.  

 

[Habitat]

Mr Walker feeding the chooks again, keeps them cackling.

[danydandan]

13 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I didnt say it HAD to start with a true premise. I said that the premise will lead to a certain conclusion through the  application of logical thinking.

If your premise is  false and you don't compensate for it, then it will lead to a conclusion which is true within the logic but untrue in reality.    You can use false statements /premises, to deliberately  test hypotheses and ideas.

My years of philosophy are helping me here. I just used google to show that i was correct. 

I would urge you to read the second of the sources I gave, which explains different  logical forms in detail. 

Do I need to quote you again? 

25 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Logic can't lead you to a fact or truth unless the original starting point is correct. 

The above quote, made by you, is another way of saying. You have to start with a true premise inorder to have a true conclusion. You said this MrWalker, it's incorrect and now your saying you didn't say it. Well you did and your wrong.

I don't need to read some redundant link about a method of thinking logically that hasn't withstood the test time. Things evolve, even deductive logic, that's why we have predictive logic. The statement quoted above is a false maybe you should read up on propositional logic, then read your last three posts and figure out where your wrong. 

[Mr Walker]

Maybe this will explain my thinking more clearly

 quote

Even though I don’t have faith in a particular god or religion, I think it’s important for everyone, regardless of belief system, to have faith. I believe that in a world with so much darkness and evil, sometimes we need faith to get through that. As we watch hours of tragedy and crime on the news, we need to cling to the idea that there is still happiness and love in the world. We need to cling to it like our lives depend on it, because they kind of do. As we hear the names of victim after victim of shootings and bombings and death, faith is the thing that keeps us from locking ourselves in our rooms.

There is a possibility of death at any moment, if you really think about it. Whether on accident or on purpose (your purpose or that of someone else), there are millions of times each day that you could die. But you haven’t, and you most likely will keep living. Even with the huge threat of sadness and hurt that constantly looms, we have faith that there is something bigger that will beat out the sadness. And even if it doesn’t beat out the sadness, it’s big enough for us to have faith that it might.

We have faith that the sun will rise each morning, even though there are millions of reasons it couldn’t. We have faith that the people we love will continue to love us back, despite all the things we do to annoy them. We have faith that even in a time with so much hate, there are enough good people to make love worth it. I may not have faith in a god, but I have great, abounding amounts of faith in life and love and art and so many other things around me. Even when life sucks worse than I could ever imagine, and I can’t see anything good through my cloudy vision, I have faith that if I stumble through it, there is something wonderful coming up.

https://www.theodysseyonline.com/faith-for-the-non-religious

or these examples

When im driving down a two-lane black top in a very rural area of my state at 80 mph, an i see another vehicle approaching me. at the same or even greater speed - very remote area so no one cares how fast you go - i have complete faith that the driver of the car coming towards me will stay in his or her lane. often ill even wave at the other river as we pass each other only a few feet apart at a combined 160 miles per hour. Usually i dont even give it a thought. . that is faith

Oh, let me think. I believe …

The sun will rise in the morning;

The bank will honor my checks;

The grocery store will accept my $20 bill;

My car will start when I turn the key;

I will not fall through the floor;

My wife is faithful to me;

My mother loves me;

Feynman’s “sum over histories” insight is true;

There are no Martians on Mars or aliens at Area 51;

Oh, wait. Is that last one religious?

NPR will still be running their interminable pledge drive tomorrow;

 

A scientist who devotes his or her life seeking a cure for cancer, for example, is exercising faith (hope and trust) in the truth that such a cure exists. If the scientist did not believe such a cure existed waiting to be discovered, then it’s doubtful they would choose that line of research.

[danydandan]

15 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Mr Walker feeding the chooks again, keeps them cackling.

Nothing relevant to add no?

[Mr Walker]

8 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Do I need to quote you again? 

The above quote, made by you, is another way of saying. You have to start with a true premise inorder to have a true conclusion. You said this MrWalker, it's incorrect and now your saying you didn't say it. Well you did and your wrong.

I don't need to read some redundant link about a method of thinking logically that hasn't withstood the test time. Things evolve, even deductive logic, that's why we have predictive logic. The statement quoted above is a false maybe you should read up on propositional logic, then read your last three posts and figure out where your wrong. 

If that is how you read it, fair enough.

it ALSO fits exactly the definitions i sourced. If you  begin with a false premise it will lead you to a false conclusion  (IF all the other logical steps are followed diligently)

But it depends how you define false One could argue that all conclusions, when arrived at logically, are true in respect to the opening premise 

 

quote

Can a valid deductive argument have a true conclusion and false premises?

A valid argument can have false premises; and it can have a false conclusion. But if a valid argument has all true premises, then it must have a true conclusion.

http://www.siue.edu/~wlarkin/teaching/PHIL213/review-1.html

True/False Questions

1.        A valid argument must have a true conclusion

 

FALSE:  A valid argument must have a true conclusion only if all of the premises are true.  So it is possible for a valid argument to have a false conclusion as long as at least one premise is false.

 

2.        A sound argument must have a true conclusion.

 

TRUE:  If an argument is sound, then it is valid and has all true premises.  Since it is valid, the argument is such that if all the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.  A sound argument really does have all true premises so it does actually follow that its conclusion must be true.

 

3.        If a valid argument has a false conclusion, then at least one premise must be false.

 

TRUE:  A valid argument cannot have all true premises and a false conclusion.  So if a valid argument does have a false conclusion, it cannot have all true premises.  Thus at least one premise must be false.

http://www.siue.edu/~wlarkin/teaching/PHIL106/validity.html

 

There are some cases where an invalid argument can have both true premises and a true conclusion but be invalid for other reasons 

eg

 

4.        If an invalid argument has all true premises, then the conclusion must be false.

 

FALSE:  It is possible for an invalid argument to have all true premises and a true conclusion.      

Ex:           P1:  All dogs are mammals.

                                                            P2:  All terriers are mammals.

                                                            C:  All terriers are dogs.

 

This argument really does have all true premises and a true conclusion, but still it is invalid—because it is possible for an argument with this structure to have true premises and a false conclusion:

                                            Ex:           P1:  All dogs are mammals.

                                                            P2:  All cats are mammals.

                                                            C:  All cats are dogs.

Edited May 20, 2019 by Mr Walker

[eight bits]

32 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

faith enables you to do things you fear.

So does courage. So does hope. So do obstinacy, shame, love, compassion, and pity. So does fear of something worse.

There is nothng distinctive about faith, and nothing about things that arose via evolution that recommends them when other things, equally indebted to evolution, are available instead to the same or better effect.

 

Edited May 20, 2019 by eight bits

[danydandan]

1 minute ago, Mr Walker said:

If that is how you read it, fair enough.

it ALSO fits exactly the definitions i sourced. If you  begin with a false premise it will lead you to a false conclusion  (IF all the other logical steps are followed diligently)

But it depends how you define false One could argue that all conclusions, when arrived at logically, are true in respect to the opening premise 

 

quote

Can a valid deductive argument have a true conclusion and false premises?

A valid argument can have false premises; and it can have a false conclusion. But if a valid argument has all true premises, then it must have a true conclusion.

http://www.siue.edu/~wlarkin/teaching/PHIL213/review-1.html

There is no other way of reading it Mr Walker, what other meaning to the following is there: 

11 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Logic can't lead you to a fact or truth unless the original starting point is correct. 

Still can't explain stuff in your own words?

Like I said Google isn't helping you here, in fact it's making you look more the fool. As the above statement is incomplete and the bolded part is incorrect. 

[Habitat]

3 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Nothing relevant to add no?

Quite relevant, actually, considering the continuous negative critique Mr Wooker gets from a certain group, it is amazing that they keep milling around for another feed of his supposed "corn" !

[danydandan]

3 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Quite relevant, actually, considering the continuous negative critique Mr Wooker gets from a certain group, it is amazing that they keep milling around for another feed of his supposed "corn" !

So no. Nothing relevant then?