What is the difference between deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning?

File: 70 KB, 1000x470, Logical-Reasoning-Topics-Questions-and-Answers.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Thu Sep 7 22:45:17 2023 No.15727316 [Reply] [Original]

What is the difference between deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning?

Anonymous Thu Sep 7 23:00:17 2023 No.15727343

>deductive reasoning
Reasoning about general truths to make a conclusion about a specific thing (All humans are mortal. Socrates is a human. Therefore, Socrates is mortal)
>inductive reasoning
Attempting to create a general truth based upon observations (Human health declines with age. No human has ever been observed to live forever. Therefore, humans are mortal)

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 8 06:53:25 2023 No.15727995 the former is for whites, the latter is for asians

Anonymous Fri Sep 8 11:21:40 2023 No.15728246

>>15727316
The creation of your question used inductive reasoning.
By deductive reasoning I have surmised that you wish to understand what deductive reasoning is, and that you also wish to have a distinct and isolated understanding of inductive reasoning.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 8 11:25:18 2023 No.15728252 >>15728246 >when the resident 95 IQ tries to say something intellectual

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 8 11:28:35 2023 No.15728256 >>15728252 Your deduction is faulty

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 8 11:34:12 2023 No.15728265 File: 175 KB, 220x220, lol-ohmygod.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15728256 >deducation That's induction, not deduction. LOL @ your repeated confusion & your life.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 8 11:40:14 2023 No.15728270 >>15728265 your deduction is faulty

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 8 11:42:12 2023 No.15728274 >>15728270 Your whole life revolves around trying to be something you are not and never will be. Just end it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 8 11:47:20 2023 No.15728281 >>15728274 induce death in your mortal vessel

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 8 11:47:23 2023 No.15728282 >>15727316 deduction is when you have a premise then you deduct a conclusion, induction is when you have a conclusion or observation then induct the premise

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 8 11:49:51 2023 No.15728286 >>15728281 Why do you want to be smart so badly? What child-abusing monster lied to you that you can't just live your life without being smart?

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 8 12:01:53 2023 No.15728300 >>15727316 Deductive reasoning draws logical conclusions from premises. Inductive reasoning models data.

Anonymous Fri Sep 8 12:02:41 2023 No.15728301

>>15728286
>Why do you want to be smart so badly?
I have concluded, from myriad deductions and inductions, that it is generally beneficial to be smart.
>What child-abusing monster lied to you that you can't just live your life without being smart?
Oddly specific... I could make a deduction that it was something that happened to you or someone close to you.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 8 12:05:50 2023 No.15728305 >>15728301 youre super cringe

Anonymous Fri Sep 8 12:06:06 2023 No.15728306

>>15728301
>it is generally beneficial to be smart.
It's also generally beneficial to be attractive and physically fit. You are neither, but you probably don't overcompensate so hard over that, so my question still stands.

>I could make a deduction that it was something that happened to you or someone close to you.
That's not a deduction, either. LOL. It's like you're going out of your way to prove my point.

Anonymous Fri Sep 8 12:28:43 2023 No.15728329

>>15728306
>It's also generally beneficial to be attractive and physically fit.
Sure, I guess this can be considered a given fact.
>You are neither, ...
Woah serious baseless leap in logic there Jimbo.
>... so my question still stands.
I was wrong;
it's not just your deductive reasoning which is faulty, it is all of your logical skills, or lack thereof, which are faulty.

>That's not a deduction, either.
Confirmation of the above conclusion which was arrived at by the use of deductive logic, whose lines of reason were not listed.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 8 12:33:45 2023 No.15728334 >>15728329 Holy Mother of Clinical Cretins... Where do all these "people" pour in from?

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 8 13:13:23 2023 No.15728364 >>15727316 inductive reasoning is actual creative intelligence. Deductive reasoning is what women and chinks confuse with intelligence

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 8 13:15:52 2023 No.15728368 >>15728364 Mid-IQ take. Creative intelligence combines both.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 8 13:15:56 2023 No.15728369 >>15727316 Inductive reasoning is what Wikipedia calls "original research".

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 9 06:27:35 2023 No.15730868 >>15728334 Aren't you intelligent enough to use your mental powers of reasoning to figure it out?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 9 08:09:00 2023 No.15730966 File: 65 KB, 220x220, 1666791902248147.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Is the generation of theories always inductive and the testing of theories always deductive?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 9 09:30:07 2023 No.15731101 >>15727343 That's backwards. Deduction is concluding evidence from external observations. Induction is working your way up from axioms.

Anonymous Sat Sep 9 09:36:12 2023 No.15731113

>>15730966
>Is the generation of theories always inductive
You end up using both induction and deduction to come up with a decent theory. You use deduction to narrow down the scope of your inductive exploration. You use deduction to fill in blanks in the theory. You use deduction to transform raw data into a form you can work with. etc.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 9 09:37:59 2023 No.15731116 >>15731101 He's correct and you're a retard.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 9 09:45:32 2023 No.15731131 >>15731116 Oh huh guess all the Sherlock Holmes movies I watched got it wrong then? https://www.scribbr.com/frequently-asked-questions/difference-inductive-deductive/

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 9 09:49:49 2023 No.15731138 >>15731131 You're a legit brainlet.

Anonymous Sat Sep 9 09:51:30 2023 No.15731143
File: 2.86 MB, 480x270, 1643365748525.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15731113
>You use deduction to narrow down the scope of your inductive exploration. You use deduction to fill in blanks in the theory. You use deduction to transform raw data into a form you can work with. etc.
But is that not just testing the theory and modifying it when disproved?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 9 09:52:35 2023 No.15731145 >>15731143 >is that not just testing the theory No? Did you actually read what you quoted? I don't understand.

Anonymous Sat Sep 9 09:56:39 2023 No.15731155
File: 2.98 MB, 854x480, 1672538200034798.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15731145
> you observe a phenomenon
> through induction you create a general law (the theory) from this
> you than use deduction to see what that law applies to
> if it does not apply to everything you originally thought you narrow down the category of things it applies to (via induction?)

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 9 09:57:56 2023 No.15731157 >>15731155 Ok, now connect it to what I said.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 9 10:00:00 2023 No.15731160 File: 66 KB, 828x820, 1693421072227815.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15731157 ?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 9 10:01:29 2023 No.15731162 >>15731160 I don't know how to help you. You're exceptionally slow...

Anonymous Sat Sep 9 10:05:51 2023 No.15731167
File: 3.53 MB, 334x251, 1665598091189633.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15731162
I don't get your point. You claimed that both induction and deduction are needed to come up with a theory.
I was referring originally (>>15730966) to theory generation, as in the first genesis of a theory. I asked if this would rely exclusively on deduction. You made it seem like it didn't. I asked if deduction may be needed for testing theories only. Testing and modifying theories is how I believe theories evolve not how they are initially generated. I suppose this caused confusion.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 9 10:07:29 2023 No.15731168 >>15731167 >I asked if this would rely exclusively on deduction *induction

Anonymous Sat Sep 9 10:10:05 2023 No.15731171

>>15731167
You asked if generation of theories always relies on induction. I told you it usually relies on both induction and deduction. I gave you examples of how deduction aids in theory generation. You asked me how those examples aren't just examples of testing the hypothesis, even though none of them involve testing the hypothesis. I don't understand why you thought they did.

Anonymous Sat Sep 9 10:14:58 2023 No.15731177
File: 3.28 MB, 480x270, 1584000321514.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15731171
Your examples of how deduction aids in theory generation included:
> You use deduction to narrow down the scope of your inductive exploration.
You cannot narrow down a theory before it has been generated.
> You use deduction to fill in blanks in the theory.
You cannot fill in blanks of a not-yet-existing theory.
> You use deduction to transform raw data into a form you can work with
I admit that I do not fully understand what you meant by this.

Anonymous Sat Sep 9 10:21:03 2023 No.15731186

>>15731177
>You cannot narrow down a theory before it has been generated.
I don't know what "narrow down a theory" is supposed to mean. I said "narrow down the scope of your inductive exploration". You're trying to explain some observations. You're not sure where to start. You use deduction to rule some things out. You use deduction to figure out some elements or premises that a workable theory would HAVE to involve. Now you've set yourself some bounds to theorize within.

>You cannot fill in blanks of a not-yet-existing theory.
You can fill in blanks in a theory under construction.

>> You use deduction to transform raw data into a form you can work with
>I admit that I do not fully understand what you meant by this.
Different ways to view data can yield different insights. You can use deduction to find new and useful ways to view the data without introducing misleading artifacts.

Anonymous Sat Sep 9 10:30:04 2023 No.15731200
File: 1.65 MB, 1080x1420, 1603130235351.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15731186
>I said "narrow down the scope of your inductive exploration". You're trying to explain some observations. You're not sure where to start. You use deduction to rule some things out. You use deduction to figure out some elements or premises that a workable theory would HAVE to involve. Now you've set yourself some bounds to theorize within.
But this seems to me like you're generating a large pool of theories via induction and then use deduction to determine which ones are viable. Then deduction would still be used for theory-testing.

> You can fill in blanks in a theory under construction.
But the theory is already there, even if it is not yet fully fledged out. The core has already been generated.

>You can use deduction to find new and useful ways to view the data without introducing misleading artifacts.
I still don't fully understand. Could I ask for an example?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 9 10:33:41 2023 No.15731210 >>15731200 It seems to me like you're an actual fucking retard.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 9 10:34:50 2023 No.15731212 File: 145 KB, 1080x1168, 1674318548416905.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15731210 no u

Anonymous Sat Sep 9 10:39:19 2023 No.15731219

Is there a name for this clinical mental illness that makes midwits pick a random post, dispute it in the most fuckwitted way they can think of, and then die on a hill trying to defend their automatically lost position? Seems to be extremely common on this board.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 9 10:40:41 2023 No.15731221 >>15727316 The phrasing of this two parts makes me think you are primitive.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 9 10:50:05 2023 No.15731237 >>15731138 >ignores the sources I posted Sure, everyone else is a brianlet and you're the only person getting it right. Whew.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 9 10:52:20 2023 No.15731240 >>15731237 The source you posted doesn't actually contradict him.

Anonymous Sat Sep 9 12:17:41 2023 No.15731399

>>15731240
It does, though. Unless you don't know what top-down and bottom-up mean. Have you ever had an introductory math course? Induction is starting from axioms, agreed-upon low-level assumptions like "there are infinite natural numbers" and then constructing theorems based on that, like "since there are infinite natural numbers, there cannot exist a biggest one".
Deduction is looking around and using, e.g., physical experiment to deduce the inner workings of nature. Original Anon had this backwards.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 9 12:18:20 2023 No.15731400 >>15731399 Just take your meds already.

Anonymous Sat Sep 9 12:41:49 2023 No.15731427

>>15731399
Induction in mathematics is not the same term. Your argument is also invalid as we can look at a given range of reals and find number that is bigger than any other. Why should we conclude naturals are distinct and that there exists no such number?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 9 12:44:15 2023 No.15731429 >>15731427 Good job dignifying the retard with a response he's obviously not going to understand and acknowledge. Have fun arguing with this obvious 80 IQ individual. I've already softened him up for you. :^)

Anonymous Sat Sep 9 13:05:24 2023 No.15731469

>>15731427
>>15731429
It is. Look at the source, samefag. First paragraph:
>Inductive reasoning takes you from the specific to the general, while in deductive reasoning, you make inferences by going from general premises to specific conclusions.
Sherlock takes a look at a client, then deduces basic truths about them (he's likely a hobo in a suit). That's deduction.
Arguing bottom-up is when he thinks about biochemical processes of eye decay and then concludes that all victims of swamp drowning must have certain indications around their eyes. That's induction. From special to general.
Man, this board is really fucking low IQ.

Anonymous Sat Sep 9 13:46:09 2023 No.15731528

Deduction is going from premise to conclusion
>"x implies y. X, therefore y"
Induction is going from observation or conclusion to induct the premise
>"there is a crater here. Perhaps a meteor hit this area a long time ago. Let's do more tests to find out"

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 9 13:54:27 2023 No.15731542 >>15731469 >Inductive reasoning takes you from the specific to the general, while in deductive reasoning, you make inferences by going from general premises to specific conclusions. That doesn't contradict him. You need to be sterilized.

Anonymous Sat Sep 9 14:28:28 2023 No.15731591
File: 137 KB, 1080x788, Screenshot_20230909-102603-037.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15731469
>Arguing bottom-up is when he thinks about biochemical processes of eye decay and then concludes that all victims of swamp drowning must have certain indications around their eyes. That's induction.
No Anon, that's abduction. Induction would be if he examined multiple victims of swamp drowning, noticed they all had certain indications around their eyes, and concluded that all such victims would have those indications.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 9 14:33:55 2023 No.15731601 >>15731427 >Your argument is also invalid as we can look at a given range of reals and find number that is bigger than any other Only if the range has a closed upper bound.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 9 15:06:02 2023 No.15731646 >>15731469 plap plap plap plap plap plap plap plap plap

Anonymous Sat Sep 9 15:06:18 2023 No.15731648

>>15731591
>noticed they all had certain indications around their eyes, and concluded that all such victims would have those indications.
In your example, he is going from observation (collecting data) to forming a model explaining the data. That is deduction, as in the source.
Agree about my example being abduction.

Anonymous Sat Sep 9 15:09:21 2023 No.15731655

>>15727316
All the other responses, but also
In deductive reasoning, if the premises are true, the conclusion MUST be true

In inductive reasoning, it is possible for the premises to be true, and for the induction to be valid, but for the conclusion to not be true.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 9 15:12:11 2023 No.15731664 >>15731648 Observation to model is induction. Premise to conclusion is deduction.

Anonymous Sat Sep 9 15:24:01 2023 No.15731680

>>15731399
Induction in mathematics refers to a specific kind of proof. A statement P is true for all natural numbers if---
1) P is true for 0
2) If P is true for k, P is true for k + 1

It's misleadingly called induction because it goes from the specific to the general in some sense, but it's nonetheless a deductive process. Inductive reasoning is only used in math for forming conjectures.

>https://www.scribbr.com/frequently-asked-questions/difference-inductive-deductive/

If you really need a source, here's one
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-inductive/#:~:text=An%20inductive%20logic%20is%20a,the%20conclusion%20true%20as%20well.

>An inductive logic is a logic of evidential support. In a deductive logic, the premises of a valid deductive argument logically entail the conclusion, where logical entailment means that every logically possible state of affairs that makes the premises true must make the conclusion true as well. Thus, the premises of a valid deductive argument provide total support for the conclusion. An inductive logic extends this idea to weaker arguments. In a good inductive argument, the truth of the premises provides some degree of support for the truth of the conclusion, where this degree-of-support might be measured via some numerical scale. By analogy with the notion of deductive entailment, the notion of inductive degree-of-support might mean something like this: among the logically possible states of affairs that make the premises true, the conclusion must be true in (at least) proportion r of them—where r is some numerical measure of the support strength.

From this it's clear that a proof by induction is not inductive reasoning. If you accept the premises, the conclusion must follow.

Anonymous Sat Sep 9 15:29:11 2023 No.15731688

>>15731648
>In your example, he is going from observation (collecting data) to forming a model explaining the data. That is deduction, as in the source.
No, deduction is applying inferences made from the model (general rules) to cases which satisfy the parameters of the model (actual victims of swamp drowning). Induction is a systematic method of testing, and thereby strengthening, an abduced rule.

I'm not familiar with this Holmes story but I assume there was a supposed victim of swamp drowning who lacked these eye indicators of which Holmes abduced the existence, from which he deduced that the victim did not actually drown in a swamp but was killed somewhere else and then dumped there. Induction would be if he checked over coroner's reports for confirmation of his hypothesis before trusting it as a rule from which to make deductions.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 9 15:46:48 2023 No.15731701 >>15731591 this anon is the first in the thread to have a triple-digit IQ. Read "The Myth of Artificial Intelligence" by Erik Larson for more information.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 9 16:22:51 2023 No.15731737 >>15731680 From a constructivist perspective, mathematical induction is indeed induction for unbounded k.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 9 16:47:28 2023 No.15731778 >>15731701 >This person has read something others have not >that means he's high iq This is the worst /"sci"/ meme.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 9 16:56:17 2023 No.15731796 >>15731778 I'm the Anon who posted >>15731591. I haven't read the book that Anon mentioned in >>15731701 but I can confirm that I have a triple-digit IQ. >Verification not required.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 9 17:00:16 2023 No.15731804 Aposteriori and apriori arguments is a much cleaner way of looking at it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 9 20:11:03 2023 No.15732139 >>15731796 >confirming the idiocy of the meme k

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 9 20:14:30 2023 No.15732149 >>15732139 >whoosh A triple-digit IQ isn't necessarily high, Anon. It's merely guaranteed to not be markedly below average.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 9 20:39:06 2023 No.15732208 >>15727316 this is a question chat gpt or even google can answer you know

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 9 20:41:33 2023 No.15732214 File: 125 KB, 750x823, 1630734466620.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15728301 ishygddt

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 9 20:47:54 2023 No.15732230 >>15732149 Absolute retard. Go back.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 10:03:20 2023 No.15733497 >>15728329 >Woah serious baseless leap in logic there Jimbo. It's called induction m8

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 10:12:52 2023 No.15733519

>>15731469
>Sherlock takes a look at a client, then deduces basic truths about them (he's likely a hobo in a suit). That's deduction.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle famously made the same mistake you did. His hero has a preternatural gift for *inductive* reasoning. The hint is in your use of the word "likely". Deductive reasoning does not deal in likelihoods. The conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. And again, your own source does nothing to contradict this.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 10:15:49 2023 No.15733526 >>15733519 >Deductive reasoning does not deal in likelihoods. NTA but you sure are stupid. You can deduce likelihoods just fine.

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 10:20:29 2023 No.15733533

>>15733526
We do not say
>All men are mortal
>Socrates is a man
>Well gee, Socrates is *probably* mortal too then isn't he, I mean, no one's lived forever before so, I guess, you know, it's not likely that he will
Because then you're working inductively. No, if the premises are true, it necessarily follows that Socrates is definitely mortal.

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 10:26:33 2023 No.15733545

>>15733533
You can deduce likelihoods just fine. Let this fact sink in and try to think of all the obvious reasons for why this is true. Actually try to do what I said. Ungolemize yourself. Let some of that humanity you've lost to imageboard-brain disease flow back into you.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 10:33:41 2023 No.15733562 >>15733545 If a premise is "X is 90% likely to happen" then deduction will never get you further than "there is a 90% chance that X happened". To conclude that the likely thing probably happened is an inductive step.

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 10:36:51 2023 No.15733567

>>15733562
>If a premise is "X is 90% likely to happen" then deduction will never get you further than "there is a 90% chance that X happened".
So?

>To conclude that the likely thing probably happened is an inductive step.
That's not an "inductive step". It's just a gamble.

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 10:40:14 2023 No.15733571

>>15733567
>So?
So it doesn't tell you anything yet. No definite conclusion can be drawn from this information using deductive methods. It's a deductive dead end.
>It's just a gamble.
Welcome to induction. Induction can be wrong sometimes because it deals with likelihoods.

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 10:44:37 2023 No.15733579

>>15733571
>So it doesn't tell you anything yet.
It tells you what the most likely possibility is, presumably through deduction. The "talent" is for deduction, then. It doesn't take any "talent" to make the leap from "most likely X" to "most likely X, so assume X".

>Induction can be wrong sometimes
Yes, but it has nothing to do with what you spouted.

>because it deals with likelihoods.
Not necessarily.

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 10:48:58 2023 No.15733587

>>15733579
>It doesn't take any "talent" to make the leap from "most likely X" to "most likely X, so assume X".
You're right. All it takes is inductive reasoning.

You seem to attach some value judgement to these terms but they are strictly neutral descriptors. You don't desperately need all your reasoning to be deductive for it to be valid.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 10:55:07 2023 No.15733597 >>15733587 >All it takes is inductive reasoning. It doesn't even take inductive reasoning, but even if I grant you this, you were still wrong and you've just conceded it.

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 11:03:45 2023 No.15733610

>>15733597
>you were still wrong and you've just conceded it.
I'm sorry, that follows in no way from the premises. You have not supported your stance in any way and it is in fact quite unclear at this point what you even understand by deduction and induction because it doesn't seem to correspond to the actual definitions. Maybe it's time to start making arguments.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 11:06:30 2023 No.15733615 >>15733610 I thought maybe there's still a bit of humanity left in you, but there's clearly none. Imageboard brain is complete and irreversible.

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 11:20:29 2023 No.15733641

>>15733615
You have made no attempt to appeal to my humanity in any rational way. You have simply repeatedly asserted that you were right and I was a golem. It is you who rejects his humanity, that is, his rational mind. Any animal can have gut feelings like yours. But we are dealing with formal logic here, which you appear to be unable to do. I can only assume (inductively) that that is the reason for this attempt at saving face. Your claims of "imageboard brain" are obviously projection because what else can produce such stellar arguments as "ungolemize yourself"? The incidental anti-Semitism is probably also no coincidence because you argue exactly like Sartre's anti-Semite:

> If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

You see, I have nothing against inductive reasoning. It can yield quite some useful insights. Such as the one that I'm dealing with an ideologically motivated midwit who will redefine terms on a whim.

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 11:23:35 2023 No.15733644

>>15733641
I'm not going to read any of your post. I'm just going to repeat a fact that your terminal imagebrain precludes you from processing: if your talent is for figuring out the most likely suspect by way of deduction (which is what Sherlock Holmes does for the most part), your talent is for deduction, not for induction. Arthur Conan Doyle didn't have some kind of misconception about what deduction is. You just have literal brain damage.

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 11:29:39 2023 No.15733658

>>15733644
You're just restating your claim without providing evidence. I think it's safe to conclude that you don't have a talent for any kind of logic at all.

lmao dude you claimed that a deductive argument is still valid even if one of the steps is a gamble, and now you're telling me, what? Sherlock Holmes would know because he's supposed to be smart? What's with the Sherlock fixation?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 11:34:25 2023 No.15733663 >>15733658 >You're just restating your claim without providing evidence It doesn't require any evidence beyond reading the fucking book. Sherlock Holmes is not a fucking criminology theorist. He deduces the most likely suspect and then confronts him.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 11:45:11 2023 No.15733684 >>15733663 >It doesn't require any evidence beyond reading the fucking book. lol holy shit So if Sherlock Holmes says "I used deduction to build a time machine" you'd be saying "actually, deduction is the art of building time machines"

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 11:50:27 2023 No.15733698

>>15733684
But your "argument" was that deducing the most likely suspect doesn't count because assuming the most likely suspect is your guy isn't a deductive step. Now you flat out deny how the books go? A concession if I've ever seen one. Hope you get forced psychiatric help for your terminal imageboard brain.

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 11:54:55 2023 No.15733708

>>15733698
M8, calling it deduction doesn't make it deduction. As I've told you at the very start, Sherlock Holmes DOES NOT deduce the most likely suspect, because that is the wrong word for what he does. So saying "but the books say that he uses deduction" AFTER I already said "Arthur Conan Doyle was mistaken about deduction" is an extremely pigheaded argument.

I don't think this conversation is for you. You should try fitting variously shaped pegs into the appropriate holes.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 11:55:53 2023 No.15733709 >>15733708 >calling it deduction doesn't make it deduction But you weren't denying that it was deduction up until after I was done rubbing the consequences of it in your face. lol. Now you're singing a different tune. How come?

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 11:59:40 2023 No.15733716

>>15733709
>But you weren't denying that it was deduction
Anon, the start of the argument (or my contribution to it at least), right here:
>>15733519
>Sir Arthur Conan Doyle famously made the same mistake you did. His hero has a preternatural gift for *inductive* reasoning.
And then you come in >>15733526 as "NTA", so this is all the two of us have been talking about. That Sherlock Holmes uses inductive reasoning and not deductive. Have you not been following that all this time? Christ Almighty.

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 12:01:08 2023 No.15733718

>>15733716
I pointed out that deducing the most likely suspect is deduction. You didn't dispute this. You just went on to shit out some vacuous dross about how you need "induction" to go from " this is the most likely suspect" to "this is the guy who did it" which is both wrong and irrelevant.

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 12:06:35 2023 No.15733724

>>15733718
>I pointed out that deducing the most likely suspect is deduction.
That's not pointing anything out, you idiot. That's just restating your claim without evidence. Which I did call out as such.
>You just went on to shit out some vacuous dross about how you need "induction" to go from " this is the most likely suspect" to "this is the guy who did it" which is both wrong and irrelevant.
It is both correct and the entire point of the argument, but I suppose if your brain has more holes than Swiss cheese it's hard to make that connection. Think, Anon: if I am arguing that Sherlock Holmes uses inductive reasoning and not deductive, and I then point out that induction is necessary to make the sort of conclusion that he does, how is that not relevant? How is that not in fact a refutation of your claim?

Sherlock also does not even arrive at the most likely suspect through deduction, for that matter, but to realise that would require you to understand what he actually does or what it means to reason deductively instead of just starting from the conclusion that deduction is whatever Sherlock Holmes does. Trying to talk about logic with someone who is extremely logically impaired, lol, it's entertaining, I'll give you that.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 12:07:06 2023 No.15733726 >>15733724 Your life will never have moral value.

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 12:11:40 2023 No.15733729

>>15733726
We are bickering about Sherlock Holmes on a Croatian Iconography forum, whatever conclusions you think you can draw from that about moral character probably says more about you than anyone else. Suffice to say that your groundless claim to unspecified moral correctness is your obvious last refuge in lieu of actual correctness.

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 12:14:30 2023 No.15733733

>>15733729
>We are bickering about Sherlock Holmes on a Croatian Iconography forum
And even so, your absolutely vile logic of behavior sticks out. Society needs to figure out what genes are associated with this conduct and weed them out using eugenics. It's really not about fictional stories or induction. It's about taking out the trash.

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 12:20:55 2023 No.15733745

>>15733733
See, I accurately concluded that you're a dishonest fascist fuck using inductive reasoning, just as Sherlock Holmes does. This is because I understand inductive reasoning both in theory and practice, whereas you are a spineless weasel who only knows how to argue through force. Indeed, it makes perfect sense that when you are confronted with actual logic, you seek to stamp it out, because it is antithetical to your entire being.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 12:21:31 2023 No.15733746 >>15733745 I have no idea what your deranged rambling is about. I'm just saying you're trash and society needs a cleanup ASAP.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 12:22:28 2023 No.15733748 >>15733746 You don't have an idea what anything is about, that's the point.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 12:23:16 2023 No.15733750 >>15733748 >preprogrammed bot drivel Time for you to go recharge.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 12:25:42 2023 No.15733754 >>15733745 brutally logically dismantled >>15733746 kek retard great defense there

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 12:26:29 2023 No.15733756 >>15733754 Imagine being so profoundly assblasted that you start replying to yourself. Next thing you're gonna take a screenshot and edit it in paint to prove it wasn't (You).

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 12:28:00 2023 No.15733759 >>15733756 This is you using inductive reasoning btw

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 12:29:13 2023 No.15733761 >>15733759 Take a break from spouting retarded shit for at least 30 minutes.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 12:37:11 2023 No.15733778 >>15733761 If I allow a thirty minute gap to fall between replies now I would be a tacit agreement with your assessment, so I must voice my disagreement.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 12:38:56 2023 No.15733780 >>15733778 >the mindless automaton explains why its program won't allow it to stop replying Just end yourself.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 12:41:26 2023 No.15733786 >>15733780 Is "automaton," i.e. a construct running on pure logical instructions, really the insult you want to go with? Once again you could've avoided embarrassment by simply thinking a few seconds longer.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 12:42:32 2023 No.15733788 >>15733786 >Is "automaton," i.e. a construct running on pure logical instructions, really the insult you want to go with? Yes. You're not just a regular moron. You're a deterministic moron.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 12:46:03 2023 No.15733797 >>15733788 We already know you despise logic in all forms, so it is therefore no surprise that you would consider someone who adheres to it a "deterministic moron". I did not need you to tell me that because it follows from the premises.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 12:47:23 2023 No.15733801 >>15733797 The program logic you adhere to is one that makes you spout unambivalently moronic posts time after time. I have no idea why you think that's a good thing. You will probably spout another clearly moronic reply. You can't help it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 12:49:21 2023 No.15733806 >>15733709 Ok faggot, give me an example of deductive reasoning used by sherlock holmes. Just a simple, 3 line syllogism that might possibly be used in the book, that you think is deductive reasoning.

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 12:53:15 2023 No.15733820

>>15733806
I don't need to give you any examples of anything. You conceded it all the way back. Your mongoloidal argument was that it doesn't count because he only nails down the most "likely" suspect. You went out of your way to emphasize that your problem is with the suspect being merely the most "likely". When I told you that deducing the most likely solution is still deduction, you didn't say that Sherlock Holmes doesn't deduce it, you claimed it doesn't count because what's being deduced is only the most "likely" solution. Then I shat all over you, you realized your position is lost and now you're trying to lie, deflect and move the goalpost. You need to be sterilized by force.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 12:54:40 2023 No.15733824 >>15733820 This is just sad to behold for so many reasons.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 12:55:02 2023 No.15733827 >>15733820 I'm actually a completely different person. I'm the one who posted this >>15731680

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 12:57:50 2023 No.15733830 >>15733827 >I'm actually a completely different person Then you can off yourself. What are you even (You)ing me for?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 12:58:52 2023 No.15733833 >>15733824 You will never be fully human. It will never be morally wrong to sterilize you by force.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 13:01:24 2023 No.15733837 >>15733830 I just want to see a genuine example of a deductive syllogism used by Sherlock Holmes. You can give one, can't you?

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 13:02:27 2023 No.15733841

>>15733830
Because he can see you making an ass of yourself in a public forum? Just my best guess.
>>15733833
Here we truly see fascism laid bare. A coping mechanism to deal with the humiliation of people refusing to acknowledge your self-evident genius. But you'll show them in the end, you'll show them all... not by proving them wrong of course, because you strictly speaking can't. But when they're on the wrong end of a gun, it won't matter any more, and that's all the proof you really need.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 13:03:12 2023 No.15733844 >>15733841 >Here we truly see fascism laid bare If you don't like fascism, maybe you should stop giving demonstrations of the natural order that you're the bottom of. :^)

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 13:04:14 2023 No.15733847 >>15733837 Did I argue to you that Sherlock Holmes makes deductive syllogisms at any point? Are you mentally ill?

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 13:06:33 2023 No.15733850

>>15733844
No demonstration could ever dissuade you, because of course that is precisely why you reject logic. That is what you consider your strength. Logic could lead you to inconvenient conclusions. But you have a conviction far stronger than mere evidence could provide. A self-righteousness stronger than simple material truth.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 13:06:59 2023 No.15733852 >>15733847 Just take a deduction used by sherlock holmes and phrase it in the form of a syllogism, you fucking retard

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 13:07:22 2023 No.15733855 >>15733806 https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17434352-the-art-of-deduction

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 13:07:29 2023 No.15733856 >>15733850 You sound legit psychotic.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 13:08:00 2023 No.15733859 >>15733852 He doesn't actually know what he's talking about. His argument is literally "the book says Sherlock used deduction".

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 13:08:46 2023 No.15733861

>>15733852
>Just take a deduction used by sherlock holmes and phrase it in the form of a syllogism
Why? Are you ok in the head? You just pop out of nowhere and start arguing with me about Sherlock Holmes as if I care. I wasn't arguing about Sherlock Holmes per se. I was disputing a mongoloid's retarded assertion that if you deduce the most likely explanation, it's induction.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 13:09:53 2023 No.15733864 >>15733856 Words have no meaning to you so call me whatever you like. You're profoundly and proudly irrational so only a fool would attach meaning to your posts.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 13:10:28 2023 No.15733865 >>15733855 Oh my god Forget formal syllogism, just give an example of his deduction. Two lines with just a basic outline of his logic.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 13:11:02 2023 No.15733869 >>15733864 Seriously, what is your psychotic rambling even about?

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 13:17:09 2023 No.15733886

>>15733861
>I wasn't arguing about Sherlock Holmes per se.
You're the one who kept harping on about Sherlock Holmes you gormless twat.
>I was disputing a mongoloid's retarded assertion that if you deduce the most likely explanation, it's induction.
The assertion is that deduction deals with certainties, not likelihoods, and you saying it's "deduced" doesn't change that. You then did nothing to show that anything had actually been deduced at any point. You simply completely misunderstood me when I pointed out you gave an example of induction and not deduction because you thought if I only address the part where you show an actual act of logical reasoning and not the implicit process that preceded it, I tacitly admit that all the preceding must've been deductive (rather than unspecified). That's such a desperate leap in logic it genuinely confused me at first. But it's also irrelevant. You obviously still don't get the difference even if we restrict ourselves to that final step.

Actually your argument was precisely this:
>It tells you what the most likely possibility is, presumably through deduction.
i.e. "we don't know how he arrived there but we're just going to call it deduction, you didn't address it, that's a concession, I will now hold you to that forever and no one can ever demand proof from me for any reason because I'm right". Smacks just a little of desperation, doesn't it?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 13:18:20 2023 No.15733888 >>15733886 >The assertion is that deduction deals with certainties, not likelihoods Can you deduce that something is more likely than some other thing?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 13:18:42 2023 No.15733889 >>15733869 It's pretty clear, honestly. You're just retarded.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 13:19:50 2023 No.15733893 >>15733889 Then explain it. Why are you rambling about how the voices in your head are being fascists and hate logic claim that words don't mean anything etc.?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 13:21:10 2023 No.15733896 >>15733888 Can you show me an example of that? Preferably taken from a Sherlock Holmes story? If not I'm just going to inductively conclude that you can't.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 13:22:30 2023 No.15733898 >>15733893 >Now he's arguing that he's really a voice in my head You've already conceded it earlier when you didn't dispute it :^)

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 13:22:47 2023 No.15733899 >>15733896 >Can you show me an example of that? Does that mean "yes"? Does that mean "no"? Does that mean "I don't know"? I asked you a simple question. Notice how your subhuman deflection subroutine suddenly kicks in.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 13:23:48 2023 No.15733901 >>15733898 >you didn't dispute my schizophrenic fantasies I barely even read them. I just see a blob of your incoherent schizoramblings and my eyes glaze over. Genuinely no idea what you're having a fit over. lol

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 13:24:45 2023 No.15733903

>>15733899
>Does that mean "yes"? Does that mean "no"? Does that mean "I don't know"?
Honestly if you can't even work out this problem there's little hope for you.
>>15733901
Yes, I know you're terrible at reading and have no idea what's going on at any given point.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 13:25:52 2023 No.15733909 >>15733903 Can you deduce that something is more likely than some other thing? Note that this is a yes/no question, not one of jewish theology.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 13:28:08 2023 No.15733912 >>15733909 It's a problem of induction, my friend. Can you find an example? If yes, then you have your answer. If not, then you also have your answer. And if you were any good at this, you'd already know my answer.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 13:28:44 2023 No.15733913 >>15733912 That's not a yes/no answer. Notice how your subhuman programming forces you to deflect repeatedly.

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 13:29:59 2023 No.15733916

>>15733869
>>15733855
>>15733856
Actually yea you're pretty much right. You can deductively reason probabilities, but that would require premises that could only be arrived at by inductive reasoning, which is why the other guy called it induction

I could go like this
1 ) - Every man that I have seen is mortal
2 ) - My observations tells me that from this, it is likely that all men are mortal
3 ) - Socrates looks and acts like a man
4 ) - My observations can be trusted to indicate that he is likely a man
Conclusion - Socrates is likely mortal

This is technically a valid deductive argument, but premises 2 and 4 are logical leaps that absolutely require induction. What was previously argued over is equivalent to "Many inductive arguments involve deduction", because you cannot possibly deduce a probability without first assuming a probability which can only be arrived at through induction.

The other guy seemed to misinterpret this as saying that you can deduce probabilities from complete non-probabilities, which is untrue
I'm the one who posted >>15733827, to be clear

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 13:31:42 2023 No.15733922 >>15733865 It's a full book of examples. Choose your favorite. I'm neither of the two(?) Anons you're autistically defending your incorrect stance against.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 13:32:45 2023 No.15733924 >>15733916 >You can deductively reason probabilities Well, okay. "Argument" ends there. >which is why the other guy called it induction I don't care what your head canon is for why some anonymous parasite said what it said.

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 13:35:45 2023 No.15733933

>>15733913
Fine. Can we deduce the probability of something? In some cases, yes. If a die has six sides, and it is a fair die, then we can deduce that the probability of any side facing upwards is 1/6.

However, if you're Sherlock Holmes, you're interested in finding which side is facing up. And you simply can't deduce that.

>>15733916
This is indeed inductive. Not just two but all four of the premises rely on observations and probability, and the conclusion arrived at cannot be stated with certainty. It's not a valid deductive argument even if you try to put it in the form of one.

>>15733922
>>15733924
You are a desperate, sad little man who continually demonstrates a cery poor grasp of logic.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 13:40:34 2023 No.15733946 >>15733886 >The assertion is that deduction deals with certainties, not likelihoods Certainties, i.e., data, as inputs. Outputs can be probabilistic or fuzzy.

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 13:40:59 2023 No.15733947

>>15733933
>This is indeed inductive. Not just two but all four of the premises rely on observations and probability, and the conclusion arrived at cannot be stated with certainty. It's not a valid deductive argument even if you try to put it in the form of one.

The argument as a whole should be called inductive, but it requires deductive reasoning to make the additional leap from

>I inductively reason that socrates is a man
>I inductively reason that all men are mortal
to
>Socrates is mortal

This is a deductive argument used on inductive premises. It should be called an inductive argument, but it does satisfy the other guy's proposition of "deducing probabilities"

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 13:42:51 2023 No.15733951

>>15733933
If you're an investigator, your job is to find the most likely perpetrator and hand him off to the justice system along with all the evidence that shows he is the most likely perpetrator. That's it. Your mongoloidal contention that this can't be done by way of deduction because (and I quote) "deductive reasoning does not deal in likelihoods" is obvious dogshit. End of discussion.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 13:43:50 2023 No.15733953 >>15733933 >If a die has six sides, and it is a fair die, then we can deduce that the probability of any side facing upwards is 1/6. That is, we observed something, gathered data, then deduced hidden truth. Just as I said earlier itt.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 13:45:04 2023 No.15733957 >>15733951 /thread

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 13:48:38 2023 No.15733967

>>15733933
>Can we deduce the probability of something? In some cases, yes. If a die has six sides, and it is a fair die, then we can deduce that the probability of any side facing upwards is 1/6.
Anyway, note here that the reasoning itself is airtight and entirely certain and at no point relies on assumptions or probabilities. We are not using probabilities to arrive at a conclusion. We are arriving at a necessarily true conclusion following from the premises which happens to be a probability. To say therefore that deductive reasoning "deals with probability" is a sleight of hand. This is not the sort of thing Sherlock Holmes does in his stories.
>>15733947
This, too is a sleight of hand. Your actual argument is
>Socrates is probably a man
>Men are probably mortal
>Socrates is probably mortal
But you rephrase it as "through induction I arrived at this conclusion which I will now use as a premise in a deductive argument". The point of deduction is that IF the premises are true THEN the conclusion follows. Of course a valid deductive argument can be false if the premises are false.
>>15733951
And yet, deductive reasoning still does not deal in likelihoods. Sherlock Holmes uses inductive reasoning instead. I'd give you an example, but, well, the books are full of them, so pick your favourite :^)

(Actually a nice example is the short story "How Watson Learned The Trick" in which it is indeed shown that Watson and Holmes arrive at very different conclusions from the same observations, whereas if they were working deductively then they would necessarily have to be in agreement)

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 13:49:50 2023 No.15733969 >>15733951 >>15733953 Also, just because you keep saying "I deduce it!" over and over again that still doesn't make it so.

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 13:50:00 2023 No.15733970

>>15733967
>, deductive reasoning still does not deal in likelihoods.
You've already conceded that you can deduce that one thing is more likely than another thing. You see now why I assert that society needs to clean up your kind of genetics? Probably not, but I bet others can.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 13:50:03 2023 No.15733971 >this thread >nobody even thought about mentioning that these terms aren't well-defined >/"sci"/

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 13:54:11 2023 No.15733981

>>15733970
>You've already conceded that you can deduce that one thing is more likely than another thing.
You've already conceded that you can't read. I specifically said that deduction can only arrive at a conclusion about the likelihood of something (which is a certainty), but does not draw conclusions about likely or uncertain premises. The latter is what Sherlock Holmes is known for. Could a hypothetical case be thought up in which Sherlock Holmes can give an airtight deductive proof for why a particular person is the perpetrator? Possibly. It's just not what happens in the canon. Probably because a case along the lines of
>Socrates killed someone
>Killing is murder
>Socrates is a murderer
isn't very thrilling because it's a foregone conclusion.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 13:55:05 2023 No.15733983 >>15733969 I'm the second Anon you quoted. I don't just claim it's deduction, I used the official definition of what "deduction" means to justify its use there. Is that a deduction or an induction?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 13:55:35 2023 No.15733984 >>15733981 >I specifically said that deduction can only arrive at a conclusion about the likelihood of something Then it "deals with likelihoods". Keep this up. Every time you post, you show why eugenics is necessary.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 13:55:41 2023 No.15733985 >>15733970 >You've already conceded Also, this is such a desperate fucking move >You've already conceded! >Actually you've misconstrued me >Don't care, conceded! >Also you haven't given any proof in favour of your own position >CONCEDED!!!

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 13:56:51 2023 No.15733989 >>15733985 You need to be sterilized by the state. If you resist, you need to be beaten into a bloody pulp up to and including permanent disability. The more you post, the more data you provide to support my inductive conclusion. :^)

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 13:58:45 2023 No.15733997 >>15733989 B-but anon-kun, that is a deduction desu.

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 14:00:49 2023 No.15734003

>>15733984
>Then it "deals with likelihoods".
You deal in falsehoods.

Anon, shall we return to the original argument? If Sherlock Holmes concludes about someone that he is "likely a hobo in a suit", then that is necessarily the sort of conclusion that follows an inductive reasoning. Because Sherlock Holmes cannot be certain that the person is a hobo in a suit. He concluded it based on certain observations which make it probably but not necessarily true. On the other hand, we are certain about the probability distribution of a fair die, so we don't use the word "likely". You equivocate the two in order to score a meaningless semantic point, but the actual argument is still lost to you.

I will stand by this simple rule of thumb. If your conclusion uses the word "likely" then you didn't use deductive reasoning.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 14:01:29 2023 No.15734006 >>15734003 >I specifically said that deduction can only arrive at a conclusion about the likelihood of something Then it "deals with likelihoods".

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 14:03:01 2023 No.15734007

>>15734006
Like I said, you are trying to score a meaningless semantic point whilst ignoring the actual core of the argument. If you want to go ahead and admit you misunderstood me from the start and you actually agree with everything I said, fine. Otherwise you're still wrong about Sherlock Holmes using deduction.

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 14:04:35 2023 No.15734011

>>15734007
>Sherlock Holmes concludes about someone that he is "likely a hobo in a suit", then that is necessarily the sort of conclusion that follows an inductive reasoning.
How do you figure that? inb4 you circle back to the refuted assertion that "deduction doesn't deal with likelihoods".

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 14:06:53 2023 No.15734016

>>15734006
In the same way the syllogism in >>15727343
deals with mortality. The trick here is that a syllogism can be about something, but that is not the same as using something in your reasoning. This basic syllogism is still valid if we substitute the terms with symbols. But it's no longer valid if we start assigning them probabilities. That is the difference.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 14:08:33 2023 No.15734018 >>15734016 Did you have a sudden psychotic fit? That's not a congruent reply. Try again.

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 14:10:06 2023 No.15734023

>>15734007
You're such a faggot. I'm the original Anon who mentioned Sherlock out of spite. Just to stir up some shit. Of course his famous inferences about personality, character etc are not deductions, but he still is using deductions in some cases (x can be at a or b. If x is not at a, it must be at b). You're such a homo that it never even occured to you to post a source. In perfect symbiosis with your insufferable character that cannot even admit an ounce of being wring that you displayed here again and again, I'll post a "source" that actually commends your style:
https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/1q1opl/is_sherlock_holmes_actually_using_deduction_or_is/

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 14:16:46 2023 No.15734035

>>15734011
Because deduction... *drum roll please*... does not deal with likelihoods. I already explained this to you as clearly as possible. The probability distribution of a fair die is a certainty. >>15734018
I see this is simply beyond you. The question now is, are you just so desperate for a win that you're willing to relinquish the entire point for a cheap semantic victory, however small, or did you never grasp what any of this was about in the first place?
>>15734023
lmao what is your dysfunction then?
>Yes of COURSE you are right but I'm still going to argue with you and claim that I could hypothetically be right and find a source that agrees with you because no one has posted any source so far and I hold it against you personally
I can admit when I'm wrong. I simply haven't found a single reason to yet in this entire thread. If you're so fond of sources then you go and find one that agrees with you. But that didn't occur to you either, did it?

So you agree that Sherlock Holmes mostly uses induction, and specifically that the example that was disputed was an example of induction, but sure, sometimes he maybe uses deduction. However, when he does, then he's no longer dealing with probabilities, is he? So what is the argument about now, exactly?

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 14:19:17 2023 No.15734038

>>15734035
>Because deduction... *drum roll please*... does not deal with likelihoods
You've conceded that it does something like 10 times by now. You need to be sterilized. We simply can't have a free society if this combination or narcissism, idiocy and mental illness gets to propagate.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 14:19:21 2023 No.15734039 >>15734035 >I can admit when I'm wrong. You consistently demonstrate that you can't. >find one that agrees with you I think you are foaming too much. The reddit thing I posted does agree with me. > is he? I'll try to find an example.

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 14:24:35 2023 No.15734049

>>15734038
>You've conceded that it does
I haven't conceded it once. You are simply desperate to twist my words.
>>15734039
>You consistently demonstrate that you can't.
I'd have to be wrong first.
>The reddit thing I posted does agree with me.
It explicitly says that Sherlock Holmes often claims to be using deduction when reasoning inductively.

Again, I have to ask you, what do you think the argument is about? Do you think I claimed at any point that Sherlock Holmes is, through some quirk of nature, incapable of using deductive reasoning?
My claims are:
Sherlock Holmes mostly uses inductive reasoning despite claiming otherwise
In the example given, you can tell that the conclusion is the product of inductive reasoning because it is only a likely conclusion
Deduction instead deals with certainty; if the premises are true then the conclusion necessarily follows.
>I'll try to find an example.
You'll fail to find an example that both involves probability and deductive reasoning, by definition.

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 14:24:38 2023 No.15734050
File: 49 KB, 601x508, 325234.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>deduction doesn't deal with likelihoods!!!
>>[counter example]
>ok but it can only arrive at a conclusion about the likelihood of something
>>so it dealts with likelihoods
>no
>>why not?
>>deduction doesn't deal with likelihoods!!!
>>[counter example]
>ok, but hobos in a suit
>>why can't that be a deduction?
>because deduction doesn't deal with likelihoods!!!

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 14:27:57 2023 No.15734054

>>15734050
Anon, like I've already explained to you ten times now, deduction only deals in likelihoods the same way it deals with Socrates, or men, or mortality. It is never part of the deductive process. Once more for the people in the back: the probability distribution of a fair die is a certainty. If you had properly grasped everything I told you, you would indeed know why Holmes saying "this person is probably X or Y" is not the product of deduction. Hint: it's because he's not certain, and cannot be certain. From that fact we can actually deduce that he used induction.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 14:29:09 2023 No.15734055 >>15734054 >deduction only deals in likelihoods the same way it deals with Socrates, or men, or mortality. Ok, so what's stopping Sherlock from deducing something about the likelihood of the perpetrator being the hobo in the suit?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 14:30:19 2023 No.15734058 >>15734055 The fact that he'd have to know a bunch of things for certain that he doesn't

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 14:31:13 2023 No.15734060 >>15734054 >the probability distribution of a fair die is a certainty. The probability distribution of a real die is no a certainty. Doesn't stop me making perfectly good deductions about them.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 14:32:15 2023 No.15734063 >>15734058 >The fact that he'd have to know a bunch of things for certain Why?

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 14:32:25 2023 No.15734064

>>15734050
Also, if you really, really want to get pedantic, then I will clarify to you that when I said "deduction doesn't deal with likelihoods" what I meant was "the deductive process does not involve likelihoods". Is that better now?
>>15734060
That would be inference, again, in spite of what you choose to call it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 14:33:28 2023 No.15734065 >>15734063 Can't deduce from premises you're unsure about.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 14:35:53 2023 No.15734067 >>15734049 >It explicitly says that Sherlock Holmes often claims to be using deduction when reasoning inductively. Exactly like I said here >>15734023 >because it is only a likely conclusion That is incorrect.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 14:36:25 2023 No.15734068 >>15727316 2+2 = 4 4-2 = 2

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 14:36:31 2023 No.15734069 >>15734067 >Exactly like I said here And that's the part where you agreed with me. >That is incorrect. Why?

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 14:38:34 2023 No.15734070

>>15734064
>That would be inference, again, in spite of what you choose to call it.
Are you mentally ill? You're telling me you can't deduce a strategy for a game of chance you're playing with friends unless you know "for certain" that the die is fair?

>>15734065
>Can't deduce from premises you're unsure about.
I'm glad you outright spell out the real root of your severely retarded opinions. I was getting the impression you are so stupid that you believe this but I was sure you were gonna deny it.

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 14:39:56 2023 No.15734073

>>15734054
>the probability distribution of a fair die is a certainty.
Maybe that of an idealistic platonic die in a toy universe. In reality, this thing does not exist. Additionally, probability is based on the law of large numbers. This means consecutive die throws will converge to a uniform distribution after a very large, but [math]finite[/math] number of trials. The latter fact makes the uniform distribution an approximation. Or, if you will, a likelihood.

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 14:43:33 2023 No.15734079

>>15734070
>You're telling me you can't deduce a strategy for a game of chance you're playing with friends unless you know "for certain" that the die is fair?
That's right, I can induce it instead :^)
You seem to be forgetting that this is a quibble over definitions.

You're quite fond of saying I'm wrong but you never actually give an example of how your "deduction" is supposed to work. I'm sure you've at least googled "syllogism" this far along?
>>15734073
But in this case you did not arrive at that likelihood through induction.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 14:44:35 2023 No.15734081 >>15734073 >>15734079 >But in this case you did not arrive at that likelihood through induction. *deduction, sorry (lest someone jump on this """"""""concession"""""""" again)

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 14:44:59 2023 No.15734082

>>15734079
Nigger, you've already explicitly spelled out the root of your mistake:
>Can't deduce from premises you're unsure about.
This is false. You can deduce from a premise that's 99% certain. You can deduce from premises that are 50% certain. You can deduce from premises that are false and you know they are false.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 14:54:01 2023 No.15734097 >>15734069 >And that's the part where you agreed with me. But in that post you said the source disagrees with me? What is wrong with you lol. >Why? You confuse certainty in outcome with certainty in inputs.

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 14:54:28 2023 No.15734099

>>15734082
A syllogism follows an IF > THEN structure. The conclusion is true only if the premises are true. If your premises are uncertain then it follows that your conclusion is equally uncertain. And of course if you know the premises are false, your conclusion will be false. But what you will never do in a deductive argument is make a leap of logic. If something is uncertain, it remains uncertain. If Sherlock is uncertain about his premises he has to make inferences.

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 14:55:41 2023 No.15734103

>>15734097
>But in that post you said the source disagrees with me?
Because at other points you disagreed with me? Is it really that hard to follow?
>You confuse certainty in outcome with certainty in inputs.
They're by definition the same with a deductive argument.

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 14:56:05 2023 No.15734105

>>15734099
>The conclusion is true only if the premises are true. If your premises are uncertain then it follows that your conclusion is equally uncertain
And? Doesn't make the deduction any less logically valid, i.e. it doesn't make the deduction any less of a honest-to-god deduction.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 14:56:26 2023 No.15734108 >>15734079 Are you seriously arguing that the difference between induction and deduction is merely the certainty of your premises?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 14:57:07 2023 No.15734111 >>15734108 The only thing he's seriously arguing for is his own forced sterilization by the state.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 14:58:49 2023 No.15734114 >>15734103 I did not disagree with the general definition. I disagree about your uncertainty point. > They're by definition the same with a deductive argument. That's not what I mean.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 15:01:28 2023 No.15734120 >>15734111 I can agree with this.

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 15:01:47 2023 No.15734123

>>15734105
Well, the other problem here is, what are we imagining the unstated premises to be? Are we trying to assign a probability to "if a man wears an ill-fitting suit, then he is a hobo"? Because that's simply not a logically sound argument. Rather, the imaginary argument is likely an inductive one:
>This man's suit doesn't fit him well
>He's probably not as wealthy as he pretends to be
>*insert other corroborating evidence here*
>He's probably a hobo
>>15734108
That is not "the difference" but a consequence of how the different forms of reasoning work. If you are sure about your premises, then a deductive argument is necessarily true. An inductive argument is not.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 15:02:48 2023 No.15734125 >>15734114 Then what do you mean?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 15:02:55 2023 No.15734126 >>15734123 > the other problem here is Hold on. Are we done with the first problem here, which is the problem that you evidently do not understand what deduction means? Do you acknowledge your mistake?

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 15:13:23 2023 No.15734142

>>15734126
No, I am using a different angle to demonstrate that it is you who has no idea what deduction means, and that you can only maintain the fantasy that Sherlock Holmes is possibly working deductively here by keeping his reasoning extraordinarily vague if not entirely ignored. Yuo're trying to claim that Sherlock Holmes can use a deductive argument to arrive at "this man is probably a hobo in a suit" by assigning probabilities to his premises in a valid syllogism. That would look something like "the man's suit doesn't fit > there is no reason why it wouldn't fit other than that he is poor and pretending > therefore he is a hobo > but now we retroactively assign probability to the premise we know to be false". What I'm showing is that if you try to work like that, you end up with an invalid syllogism, because the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. There could be other reasons the man's suit doesn't fit. So then you have to argue "the man's suit doesn't fit > probably because he's poor and pretending > therefore he's likely a hobo" but that is an inductive line of reasoning. A deductive argument would leave no room for alternative interpretations.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 15:14:28 2023 No.15734145 >>15734142 >No, Why don't you acknowledge your mistake? >Can't deduce from premises you're unsure about. This is wrong. Do you acknowledge that you were wrong?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 15:15:14 2023 No.15734146 >>15734145 You have not demonstrated any mistake on my part. I induce therefore that I have not made one.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 15:15:38 2023 No.15734147 >>15734146 >You have not demonstrated any mistake on my part. What about the following? >Can't deduce from premises you're unsure about. Do you acknowledge that this is wrong?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 15:17:00 2023 No.15734151 >>15734147 If you insist on being pedantic again, you can construct a valid syllogism using false premises, but you cannot arrive at a useful conclusion that way.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 15:17:51 2023 No.15734153 >>15734151 >you can construct a valid syllogism using false premises Can you construct a valid syllogism using an uncertain but plausible premise?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 15:19:41 2023 No.15734156 I feel dumb. From which I can deduce that I might lack the required qualifications to be here, therefore thank you everyone and bye.

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 15:19:51 2023 No.15734157

>>15734125
Sigh... alright.
I can xduce things that are certain from premises that are uncertain. Example:
When the (unobstructed towards the top) sidewalk is wet, there is a chance that it rained. From this I conclude that when the sidewalk is dry, it did not rain.
Let's call the premise(s) X and the conclusion y. In this case, X is partly uncertain, y is certain.
You confuse this with X being certain and y being uncertain.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 15:20:26 2023 No.15734159 >>15734153 I'm curious to see you try.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 15:20:40 2023 No.15734160 >>15734159 Can you construct a valid syllogism using an uncertain but plausible premise?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 15:21:38 2023 No.15734162 >>15734160 Like what?

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 15:24:59 2023 No.15734164

>>15734157
>When the (unobstructed towards the top) sidewalk is wet, there is a chance that it rained.
This is just a corrolary of "if it had rained, then the sidewalk would be wet", which gives us the following:
>If it had rained the sidewalk would be wet
>The sidewalk is not wet
>Therefore it did not rain
As you rightly note, it does not necessarily follow that if the sidewalk is wet that it has rained. But that is irrelevant to the conclusion here.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 15:25:17 2023 No.15734166 >>15734162 Can you construct a valid syllogism using an uncertain but plausible premise?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 15:26:10 2023 No.15734170 >>15734166 I don't know, can you?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 15:27:25 2023 No.15734172 >>15734170 >I don't know Then why are you arguing about deductive logic? Anyone who understands what it is can answer that question instantly and with full confidence. No one who understands deductive logic deflects over it 5 times in a row.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 15:28:44 2023 No.15734173 >>15734172 So you can? Can you show me? Instead of deflecting five times in a row?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 15:29:28 2023 No.15734175 >>15734173 I really don't know how someone can look at you and see anything but a vile little piece of low IQ, narcissistic genetic trash.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 15:30:35 2023 No.15734176 >>15734175 Turn on your monitor

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 15:32:44 2023 No.15734177 >>15734176 Can you construct a valid syllogism using an uncertain but plausible premise?

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 15:34:20 2023 No.15734180

>>15734177
No, but in all seriousness, if you were any good at inductive logic, you'd have inferred my answer, oh, five times over.

But I'm going to ask you to give an example of what you mean before I commit to anything because I am open to the possibility that I am misinterpreting you. Is it really that hard, as a token of good faith, to give the example that I've asked you for four times now?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 15:35:51 2023 No.15734183 >>15734180 >No, No, what? You're saying it can't be done?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 15:39:06 2023 No.15734190 >>15734183 That wasn't actually my answer, lol, that part was rhetorical. I'm saying I want you to clarify what you mean with an example.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 15:40:12 2023 No.15734191 >>15734190 > I want you to clarify Can you construct a valid syllogism using an uncertain but plausible premise? Which part of that question needs clarification, parasite?

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 15:51:08 2023 No.15734209

>>15734191
What part of "example" is unclear? Give me a valid syllogism that meets your criteria and I will judge it. If you can't, I think that constitutes an answer in itself. I don't trust you to argue in good faith, nor will I try to prove a negative, so be concrete for once. And if you are right, and I was wrong, I will admit it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 15:52:08 2023 No.15734210 >>15734209 > I think that constitutes an answer in itself Then spell out that answer, parasite. :^)

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 15:53:40 2023 No.15734213 >>15734210 Obviously, if you continue to deflect and cannot provide a valid syllogism that meets your criteria, the likely inference is that you can't do it.

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 15:54:18 2023 No.15734215

>>15733756
How is it even possible to have inductive and deductive skills this inaccurate?

Neither of those replies are mine, and besides, any idiot, even you, knows you can just delete cookies/clear cache to get rid of the (you)'s
You have clearly demonstrated only your absolute logical retardation.
Just wow, it's almost impressive.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 15:55:20 2023 No.15734216 >>15734213 Can you construct a valid syllogism using an uncertain but plausible premise? I don't know why it's so funny to watch you lose your mind trying to avoid this question, but I could do it all day.

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 15:57:05 2023 No.15734220

>>15734216
Give me an example of what you consider an uncertain but plausible premise, if a whole syllogism is beyond your ability. Come on. Tell me the question I'm answering. Show good faith and you will receive good faith in return. If you have a point here, it's so easy to just slam-dunk it. Why don't you? What can be inferred from your reluctance?

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 15:59:47 2023 No.15734225

>>15734220
1. If a poster repeatedly tries to avoid a simple yes/no question, it's probably because he knows he lost the argument
2. The mongoloid I am talking to repeatedly tries to avoid a simple yes/no question
3. Therefore the mongoloid I am talking to probably knows he lost the argument
Perfectly good deduction.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 16:12:28 2023 No.15734250 >>15734225 This has the appearance of a valid syllogism, but it's not, because the first premise requires you to make an inference.

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 16:14:29 2023 No.15734252

>>15734250
Ok. I think we can end it here. Literally anyone who isn't severely retarded can simply read your last post and correctly conclude that you are a severe retard and that everything you've been arguing so far, which stems from this mentally retarded belief of yours, is wrong.

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 16:16:16 2023 No.15734255

>>15734252
No, in fact, this is like a textbook example of an invalid syllogism.
>If the sidewalk is wet, it probably rained
>The sidewalk is wet
>It probably rained
Cue the neighbour with a garden hose. Your deduction was wrong because your first premise fails to take into account other possibilities. Inserting "probably" as a weasel word doesn't alter that.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 16:18:03 2023 No.15734261 >>15734255 There's really nothing to discuss here anymore. Anyone can just read your post, see that you're self-evidently wrong, and dismiss you right away.

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 16:23:13 2023 No.15734273

>>15734255
And if you're going to say "ah but it's still probable that it rained because most of the time when the sidewalk is wet it's because of rain"... then you're reasoning inductively. But deductively the most you can say is "well either it rained or it didn't".
>>15734261
Ah yes, it's naturally "self-evident" because you can't evidence it yourself.

This sort of bad faith is so characteristic for your kind.
>Ah there we go, you said something I can interpret as an admission, I'm right, you're wrong forever, everyone can see, if I say it often enough it'll be true

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 16:25:42 2023 No.15734278

>>15734273
>Ah yes, it's naturally "self-evident"
Yes. We're down to the 1+1=x level and you keep asserting x=3. We could argue about arithmetic, but any child who can count on his fingers can already see you're a fucking retarded. There's no payoff for trying to educate you.

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 16:27:01 2023 No.15734280

>>15734273
The crazy thing about this is that earlier in this thread you've already conceded that the syllogism is valid even if the premise is outright blatantly false, so you're just contradicting yourself directly. You have a clinically subhuman level of intellect.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 16:28:29 2023 No.15734282 >>15734278 No, anon, a syllogism that contains an inference as one of its premises is invalid, that is the 1+1 of formal logic.

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 16:31:07 2023 No.15734288
File: 29 KB, 500x565, (you).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>a syllogism that contains an inference as one of its premises is invalid,
Nevermind stupidity. This is deformity. This is the mental equivalent of a repulsive genetic disease that makes a mother want to smother her child.

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 16:34:17 2023 No.15734292

>>15734288
You can tell it's invalid because the conclusion is uncertain. It doesn't necessarily follow that it rained just because the sidewalk is wet. Therefore if you see that the sidewalk is wet and exclaim that it probably rained, you're reasoning inductively. Saying "ah but it follows that it probably rained" is still using induction to arrive at your conclusion.

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 16:37:41 2023 No.15734294

>>15734292
>You can tell it's invalid because the conclusion is uncertain
So if it's false, the syllogism is valid, but if it's "uncertain" it's invalid? I'm telling you, there's being stupid and then there's being deformed. Being a degenerate. Society can tolerate stupid people, but not heavily dysgenic freaks like you. Sterilization or even state-enforced euthanasia is in order here.

>>	Barkun Sun Sep 10 16:40:58 2023 No.15734298 Are you a trader? Looking for a good deal? Up to maximum? (This depends) Then start working optimally for me. If ruthless is all you are, ignore this.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 16:41:02 2023 No.15734300 >>15734294 A syllogism can be valid or invalid independently of it it's true. You knew that, right? But if you start reasoning inductively it's simply not a syllogism any more.

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 16:43:09 2023 No.15734305

>>15734300
>A syllogism can be valid or invalid independently of it it's true.
So if it's false, the syllogism is valid, but if it's "uncertain" it's invalid? I mean it when I say you are something other than a human. I don't think your behavior can even be called "stupidity". I've dealt with stupid people and they are nothing like you. There's something distinctly inhuman and inorganic about the "thoughts" you shit out. You are very much like a broken machine.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 16:43:39 2023 No.15734306 >>15727316 deduce is narrowing via logic. induce is broadening via logic.

Barkun Sun Sep 10 16:46:11 2023 No.15734311

Here's my advocation of honesty. It doesn't mean much without skill, what I'm offering is all that goes with knowledge but no more. No blueprints for example. You won't know all the tech. You'll get a complete wikipedia. I've got the skill and almost max IQ(soon to be). That's my honesty in effort to make this deal clear.
You'd need to make major changes. What I offer is a promise in exchange for good prior.

>>	Barkun Sun Sep 10 16:47:35 2023 No.15734314 >>15734311 We can work on perfecting the deal. Make enough room for me to make and sign a contract. Good is yours.

>>	Barkun Sun Sep 10 16:51:08 2023 No.15734318 >>15734314 Plus if you do go all the way and release me I'll do the deal anyway out of good will. Rest assured

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 16:51:26 2023 No.15734319 >>15734305 >So if it's false, the syllogism is valid, but if it's "uncertain" it's invalid? Do you think a valid syllogism is necessarily true?

>>	Barkun Sun Sep 10 16:52:56 2023 No.15734321 >>15734319 Too unsafe

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 16:53:31 2023 No.15734322 >>15734319 This is a literal bot, isn't it? There's just no way this thing is human. lol

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 16:54:19 2023 No.15734325 >>15734322 Can't help but notice you avoided answering a simple yes/no question

Barkun Sun Sep 10 16:57:14 2023 No.15734327

>>15734321
Well. There's no way to do anything. I can only move rigidly. Part of the game I'm playing is learning the very last and vital technique required to actually do other than that. Such as focusing up, holding down. It's tricky. You release me from this problem. Either via prior contract or post good will. All knowledge is yours. I'll either make a Wikipedia or database share you.

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 16:58:17 2023 No.15734330

>>15734325
I was the one who taught you earlier that a syllogism can be valid even if the conclusion is false. You demonstrably didn't know this. Do you need a rehash? Anyway, let's change the subject because this is boring. Assuming you're an actual living being (which I doubt), what makes you think it's morally wrong somehow for the state to sterilize and/or euthanise someone like you?

>>	Barkun Sun Sep 10 17:00:03 2023 No.15734333 >>15734327 And I can't think so likelihood is if you can work this technique out easily I'll more than struggle to do the same. I'ma need to stumble on it.

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 17:00:43 2023 No.15734335

>>15734330
>I was the one who taught you earlier that a syllogism can be valid even if the conclusion is false.
Oh shit, Mr. Foster, it's been like a decade, how have you been? Still working at university or have you retired by now?
>You demonstrably didn't know this.
Oh, dear, Mr. Foster, old age hasn't been kind to you has it?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 17:01:21 2023 No.15734338 >>15734335 Assuming you're an actual living being (which I doubt), what makes you think it's morally wrong somehow for the state to sterilize and/or euthanise someone like you?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 17:03:39 2023 No.15734340 >>15734338 I refuse to entertain the masturbatory fantasies of sad little fascists. You may think that is me avoiding the question, but it is my answer. I am of infinitely greater moral value than the likes of you.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 17:05:19 2023 No.15734345 >>15734340 Ok, so there's no moral, rational or practical reason why you shouldn't be sterilized and/or euthanized. Good.

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 17:11:08 2023 No.15734357

>>15734345
How does it feel to have been repeatedly bested by a golemised subhuman thing? Again we see the seething fascist retreat into his masturbatory revenge fantasies, the only arena where he can consider himself "superior" for a given definition of the term. He cannot out-argue his opponents, but at least he can imagine them in death camps.

You know there's this great bit in Mein Kampf where Hitler is right fuming that Jews won't simply admit how self-evidently correct he is (without specifying any actual argument he made, of course) and how it's part of the reason he hates them and you can just see the sad little midwit swearing revenge on the Jewish intellectuals who outwitted him time and again.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 17:12:51 2023 No.15734360 >>15734357 I have no idea what your psychiatric ramblings are about.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 17:13:47 2023 No.15734361 >>15734360 Of course you don't. That would require introspection.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 17:17:18 2023 No.15734368 >>15734361 I can't "introspect" into the abysmal black hole you call your mind. You just keep rambling psychotically about winning imaginary battles against someone, something about Nazis, something about Mein Kampf, I don't understand. You need help.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 17:20:28 2023 No.15734375 >>15734368 >I just hate Jews and think anyone I deem "subhuman" should be euthanised, why do people keep calling me a nazi ;(((( It's called induction But of course you only cry out because you've been found out

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 17:22:45 2023 No.15734381 >>15734375 I didn't even say anything about jews. Anyway, what reasonable man doesn't dream about a society free of subhumans?

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 17:30:24 2023 No.15734401

>>15733545
The more I debated with them the more familiar I became with their argumentative tactics. At the outset they counted upon the stupidity of their opponents,
>>15733545
>Let this fact sink in and try to think of all the obvious reasons for why this is true.
but when they got so entangled that they could not find a way out they played the trick of acting as innocent simpletons.
>>15733567
>So?
Should they fail, in spite of their tricks of logic, they acted as if they could not understand the counter arguments and bolted away to another field of discussion.
>>15733709
>But you weren't denying that it was deduction up until after I was done rubbing the consequences of it in your face. lol. Now you're singing a different tune. How come?
>>15733718
>You didn't dispute this.
>>15733861
>I wasn't arguing about Sherlock Holmes per se.
They would lay down truisms and platitudes; and, if you accepted these, then they were applied to other problems and matters of an essentially different nature from the original theme.
>>15733924
>>You can deductively reason probabilities
>Well, okay. "Argument" ends there.
>>15733970
>You've already conceded that you can deduce that one thing is more likely than another thing.
If you faced them with this point they would escape again, and you could not bring them to make any precise statement.
>>15734191
>Which part of that question needs clarification
Whenever one tried to get a firm grip on any of these apostles one’s hand grasped only jelly and slime which slipped through the fingers and combined again into a solid mass a moment afterwards.
>>15734294
>So if it's false, the syllogism is valid, but if it's "uncertain" it's invalid?

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 17:32:19 2023 No.15734408

>>15734401
If your adversary felt forced to give in to your argument, on account of the observers present, and if you then thought that at last you had gained ground, a surprise was in store for you on the following day. The shitposter would be utterly oblivious to what had happened the day before, and he would start once again by repeating his former absurdities, as if nothing had happened. Should you become indignant and remind him of yesterday’s defeat, he pretended astonishment and could not remember anything, except that on the previous day he had proved that his statements were correct.
>>15734330
>I was the one who taught you earlier that a syllogism can be valid even if the conclusion is false. You demonstrably didn't know this. Do you need a rehash?
Sometimes I was dumbfounded. I do not know what amazed me the more–the abundance of their verbiage or the artful way in which they dressed up their falsehoods. I gradually came to hate them.

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 17:36:21 2023 No.15734418

>>15734381
>I didn't even say anything about jews.
>>15733545
>Ungolemize yourself.
>>15733909
>Note that this is a yes/no question, not one of jewish theology.
Sure, I bet you thought you were subtle calling me a "parasite" as if that makes any sense in the context of an argument about the definition of a word. But when we consider your obviously fascist outlook on life and your anti-Semitic outbursts, it's not hard to arrive at the logical conclusion that you're just a nazi.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 17:57:55 2023 No.15734457 >>15734401 >>15734408 >>15734418 Holy mental illness. LOL. There's 7 mentions of the word "jew" ITT and almost all of them are from you. lol

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 18:01:18 2023 No.15734462

>>15734457
Amazing, I just pointed out to him that his dogwhistles are anything but subtle, and yet
Whenever one tried to get a firm grip on any of these apostles one’s hand grasped only jelly and slime which slipped through the fingers and combined again into a solid mass a moment afterwards.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 18:03:10 2023 No.15734468 >>15734462 >dogwhistles Hello, ADL. No wonder you're the only one ITT rambling about jews.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 18:05:40 2023 No.15734474 >>15734468 >Hello, ADL. Nevermind, now it's just a blaring siren. Also, easy to say "most of the mentions are yours" when half of mine are me quoting you.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 18:07:42 2023 No.15734480 @15734474 >how wounded he is...

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 18:08:41 2023 No.15734482 >>15734164 What is or isn't corollary is relative to your statements. My statement was as I had made it. Two uncertain statements lead to a certain statement. Perfectly valid.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 18:09:04 2023 No.15734484 >>15734480 But I called you a nazi and look at how injured you are. You've been found out.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 18:09:49 2023 No.15734485 >>15734250 The fact that one of the premises is an inference is irrelevant to the fact that what other anon described is a deduction.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 18:10:16 2023 No.15734486 >>15734484 I genuinely have no idea why you think I'm offended by you calling me a Nazi. It's just funny how you're getting assblasted by my pointing out that: 1. You're the only one rambling about jews 2. You're ADL

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 18:11:18 2023 No.15734488 >>15734485 That's fascist logic. We don't tolerate antisemitism on this sub, chud.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 18:15:25 2023 No.15734497 >>15734486 >You're ADL Not that anon, but that's a pretty harsh insult.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 18:19:31 2023 No.15734502 >>15734482 Your syllogism is only valid because it contains the unstated premise that the sidewalk would be wet if it had rained. It does not work otherwise. Both your first premise and your conclusion rely on this unstated premise.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 18:20:56 2023 No.15734505 >>15734497 What are you saying? That ADL is bad? You sound like a Nazi to me.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 18:22:19 2023 No.15734508 >>15734505 Huh? But the ADL are the Nazis. Not sure what you're trying to say here.

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 18:22:39 2023 No.15734509

>>15734486
>I genuinely have no idea why you think I'm offended by you calling me a Nazi.
Oh, of course you're not offended, we both know that you are. It's just funny how much you squirmed to deny it before. Of course, you're still denying rambling about Jews even as you're rambling about Jews. Oh, but you're avoiding the actual word! My bad, I can't possibly discern what you might be referring to then and so I can't call you out, those are the rules.

Honestly, why the sad little charade?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 18:27:01 2023 No.15734519 >>15734509 Look, I disagree with Nazi ideology on 6 million different points but I'd sooner tatoo a swastika on my forehead and march to the tune of the Horst-Wessel-Lied than acknowledge your golem world order as legitimate.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 18:38:36 2023 No.15734551 >>15734519 Look, man, if I'm a Jew, then you're a nazi I deduced that so it's airtight

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 18:40:01 2023 No.15734555
File: 150 KB, 698x718, a36.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15734551
The sad thing is that I never even said you were a jew until you started shouting ADL slogans at me. Again, you're the only one ITT rambling about jews, as is usually the case.

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 18:46:34 2023 No.15734571

>>15734555
Why are nazis such pathetic ruleswankers when it suits them?
>Wtf you can't just say I hate Jews, I didn't say I hate Jews!
>I mean I may have implied it, but like...
>Subtly enough, you know?
>I have plausible deniability!
>You owe me the benefit of the doubt!
>Just because you're right about the fact that I hate Jews doesn't mean that was a fair assumption to make!
>Anyway you're a Jew and you have to die lol

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 18:48:04 2023 No.15734577

>>15734571
Hey, I didn't say I don't hate you. All I'm saying is that you had no particular reason to assume antisemitism on my part except for your being an actual kike and getting called a parasite, which seems to have resonated with you. Fucking lol.

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 18:57:46 2023 No.15734609

>>15734577
And yet despite you insisting I had "no particular reason" I somehow managed to arrive at the correct conclusion anyway. Am I Sherlock Holmes? Or are you just an idiot? It's really only you daft twats I see playing this stupid game and for some reason it seems to catch you by surprise every time.

I'm also not surprised of course that a nazi thinks I'm a Jew, although I'm not. It's an interesting contrast, don't you think? I arrive at the right conclusion though you think you were so subtle. You arrive at the wrong conclusion because you are actually transparent and predictable as fuck.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 19:00:54 2023 No.15734621 File: 37 KB, 621x414, 324234.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15734609 >I somehow managed to arrive at the correct conclusion anyway. Wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 19:07:37 2023 No.15734639 >>15734621 >Uh, I'm actually a nazbol third positionist Strasserist, get it right you fucking kike

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 19:11:21 2023 No.15734653 >>15734639 It's like you can't get enough of spouting psychotic babble and being wrong about it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 19:18:04 2023 No.15734668 I've found it. This is officially the worst thread on /sci/.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 19:19:21 2023 No.15734671 >>15734653 Whatever man, "anti-Semitic fascist" is nazi enough for me, just as "person who understands logic" is Jewish enough for you.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 19:24:10 2023 No.15734682 >>15734671 I'm not a fascist, either. Strictly speaking I'm not even a legitimate antisemite. Can you be wrong some more?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 19:27:42 2023 No.15734694 >>15734682 I'm strongly considering the possibility that you're just a brazen liar who expects me to reject the evidence of my eyes and ears.

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 19:30:34 2023 No.15734700

>>15734694
>the evidence of my eyes and ears.
What evidence do you have for my being a fascist or a Nazi or whatever it is the voices in your head claim? inb4 you desperately scour the thread and cope up with 50 posts that don't support your schizophrenic narrative in any way.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 19:34:30 2023 No.15734713 >>15734700 >What evidence do you have? Don't go looking for evidence though you schizo

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 19:37:05 2023 No.15734719 >>15734713 Go looking. You just won't find it. You'll probably still link to every post ITT and claim it as evidence. You're too intellectually deformed for basic reason.

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 19:41:16 2023 No.15734726

>>15734719
Basic reason tells me that a person who talks about euthanising or forcibly sterilising subhumans is a fascist, and that a person who complains about golemised parasites, Jewish theology, and the ADL is a "legitimate" anti-Semite. But I guess maybe you don't see that because you're too immersed in your bubble so it doesn't even register to you as that excessively fascist or anti-Semitic. I guess we've come full circle to your first projection: you suffer from terminal imageboard-brain disease

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 19:44:34 2023 No.15734733

>>15734726
>Basic reason tells me that a person who talks about euthanising or forcibly sterilising subhumans is a fascist
That's not "basic reason" telling you that. That's Mr. Goldstein's history book. In reality, some of the most esteemed intellectuals of your precious """liberal democracy""" were already selling people on the idea of sterilizing and euthanizing the feeble-minded when Hitler and Mussolini were still in their diapers. Your precious """progressive movement""" was founded by brutal eugenicists. lol

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 19:49:50 2023 No.15734752 >>15734733 lol okay mr. not-a-""""""legitimate""""""-anti-Semite, I think we're done here

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 19:50:58 2023 No.15734757 >>15734752 Boy, the simple truth sure riled you up. Call the ADL.Tell them to send reinforcements.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 19:53:28 2023 No.15734764 >>15734757 Look at all this illegitimate anti-Semitism on display

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 19:54:10 2023 No.15734767 >>15734764 Why did you drop the Nazi and fascist charges, yid?

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 19:56:53 2023 No.15734777

>>15734767
I didn't, it's clear enough you're a liar so you're obviously lying when you deny those too. It's also clear that you don't consider yourself a progressive. It's just kinda baffling that you think you're fooling anyone.
>Golem subhuman parasite rabbi ADL kike yid RREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>I think I got away with it, I didn't mention the word "Jew" once, there's no way he can legitimately accuse me of anti-Semitism

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 19:58:50 2023 No.15734784 File: 20 KB, 318x318, 1241.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15734777 >it's clear enough you're a liar So what did I lie about? >It's also clear that you don't consider yourself a progressive. Where did I ever imply that, rabbi?

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 20:08:01 2023 No.15734813

>>15734784
>So what did I lie about?
About not being a fascist or an anti-Semite.
>Where did I ever imply that, rabbi?
When in your precious little "history" lesson you associate your view with "my" progressive movement, even as you distance yourself from it. You know, all I did to imply I was progressive (or a Jew, for that matter) was oppose you, not even in the realm of politics but, need I remind you, on the matter of whether or not Sherlock Holmes used inductive or deductive reasoning. That was seriously enough for you to start dropping "subtle" hints. It's rather too disingenuous of you to insist that I can't draw any conclusions about you from your actual regurgitation of fascist propaganda when you fabricate my life story from whole cloth, isn't it? And when you then later transparently lie about it, well, who gives a shit? Nazis are almost pathological liars, I've found. Even when you're so obviously discovered you still delight in pretending otherwise and being dishonest little shits just for the sake of it.

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 20:10:06 2023 No.15734820
File: 59 KB, 720x534, cfbd442c18eb898ee2bed1e20ea6f0e225ce6e79cc50273fea2b19ad1b86f6e1_1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15734813
>About not being a fascist or an anti-Semite.
You've already conceded that nothing I sad was specifically "fascist" or "Nazi". As for my supposedly being an antisemite... hell, I'd join the ADL if they made good memes, but jews can't meme. :^)

>When in your precious little "history" lesson you associate your view with "my" progressive movement, even as you distance yourself from it.
So?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 20:15:54 2023 No.15734843 >>15734820 Ah, we're back doing the "you've already conceded" bit about things no one ever conceded nor would logically concede based on anything you said. Like I said, you're a sad, desperate little man who can't argue his way out of a paper bag.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 20:20:26 2023 No.15734861 File: 18 KB, 317x320, six-million-wasnt-enough.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15734843 It doesn't matter what YOU think you've conceded. I am the final judge of that, since you are feeble-minded cretin.

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 20:23:48 2023 No.15734880

>>15734861
>It doesn't matter what YOU think you've conceded.
Right, of course it doesn't. Well, it doesn't matter what YOU think you've conceded then either, does it? You've revealed yourself to be a lying fascist and blatant anti-Semite a dozen times over. You clearly revel in it and then revel in lying about it, too.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 20:26:07 2023 No.15734894 >>15734880 What is it about yids and mental illness? Why is your race so prone to schizophrenia, scientifically speaking? The mods should do you a favor at this point and Aktion T4chan you out of your misery.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 20:30:22 2023 No.15734914 This thread was so much funnier than the sci humor one. Thanks, guys.

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 20:32:00 2023 No.15734919

>>15734894
>Where does this mentally ill yid get the crazy idea that I'm an anti-Semite? Six million wasn't enough, I swear
It's exactly this sort of blatant doublethink that I've found to be incredibly characteristic of fascism. But i'm not alone, of course:

>Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 20:35:29 2023 No.15734934 File: 125 KB, 1235x481, pedo.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15734919 Do you usually lift your talking points from pedos?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 20:36:15 2023 No.15734937 >>15734934 Do you usually lift your talking points from disingenuous nazis on 4chan (the answer is of course yes)

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 20:38:49 2023 No.15734948 >>15734937 Originality is the fine art of remembering what you hear but forgetting where you heard it. :^)

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 20:39:43 2023 No.15734951 >>15734948 Nice, did you come up with that?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 20:40:22 2023 No.15734953 >>15734951 I forgot.

>>	Cult of Passion Sun Sep 10 20:59:57 2023 No.15734987 File: 13 KB, 371x353, 1650089727783.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15728246 >surmised

Anonymous Sun Sep 10 21:27:48 2023 No.15735054

>>15727316
A = 1
B = 2
C = 3
D = 4
E = ?
With these what do we know about E?
>deductive
Nothing.
>Inductive
Possibly 5, following linear counting

>Inductive
Sally has 2 legs, therefore she's likely a female human, which has 2 legs and sally is a common human female name.
>Deductive
Sally has 2 legs, therefore nothing

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 21:34:31 2023 No.15735068 >>15735054 >Deductive >Nothing That doesn't make any sense.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 10 22:04:52 2023 No.15735131 >>15735068 To make sense of things, people use intuititive reasoning

Anonymous Mon Sep 11 08:56:07 2023 No.15736183

>>15735054
>Sally has 2 legs.
>Sally is a girl's name, therefore Sally is some kind of female creature. (DEDUCTION)
>has 2 legs is somewhat inconclusive, since she may be either a creature which once had or usually has more (or less) legs hence the necessity of mentioning the number of legs, or it is of a categorical sense, in which case she is meant to have 2 legs, and the statement of this kind is to provide a clue as to the nature of Sally.
>(INDUCTION follows) Since Sally is often a name attributed to women, and humans are known to have 2 legs in almost all circumSTANCES(bad pun), it may be a fair assumption that Sally is a girl;
>however, in this political climate, assuming the gender from a name is inherently wrong and inconclusive
>furthermore the mentioning of the 2-leggedness of the creature is highly suspect, so indeed I am now more inclined to conclude that Sally refers to either a bird, or a 2-legged dog.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 11 13:20:04 2023 No.15736567 >>15727316 One is faster than the other

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math