James Burke : The Day The Universe Changed: "In The Light Of The Above", 4 of 5 (CC)
Uploader Comments (JamesBurkeWeb)
All Comments (49)
-
@NosferatuD premise*
-
@NosferatuD - the man is now 75 years old I beg your pardon but to have some fantasy that he would produce & star in another series like these is ...well,,, rather ill-logical
-
The thing I find interesting about this. The whole breakout of the new knowledge is being echoed today with the spread of the internet. Once knowledge gets out of the bottle it's not going back in. (Unfortunately the same can be said of stupid to some extent, but still...)
-
Anyone know what the choiral music around the 8-9 minute mark is?
-
Great info I would suggest using GreenTextbooks . org
Save Money, Save The Planet
GreenTextbooks . org specializes in the recycling of textbooks, DVDs, CDs. Buying used textbooks not only saves you money, but cuts down on greenhouse gases caused by the manufacturing of new textbooks.
With GreenTextbooks . org you're not only saving trees, you are saving some green. GreenTextbooks . org
-
Oh yes there is a difference to behold. Do you enjoy Eastenders' Bradley?
-
Not JamesBurkeWeb which I thought I was signed in as.
-
What is 'the wrong user' ?
-
No. And I'm signed in as the wrong user ;)
-
Yes, for much has happened. Did you hear about the British man's execution in China?
I loved Connections and the Day the Universe Changed. Excellent programs. I still wish that James Burke would return to television.
Still, that was the WOST syllogism I have ever heard. Logic is only as accurate as the soundness of the premises. So although the argument may be valid, the soundness is whacked.
NosferatuD 2 years ago
I think that example is meant to be "unsound". That is, he is trying to demonstrate the concept of a syllogism, regardless of the truth value of the prepositions.
By sheer accident, the conclusion happens to be correct. But it doesn't follow from pure logic (a little jab at Aristotle's "Organon").
- JBW
JamesBurkeWeb 2 years ago
I would argue that his particular example does more to confuse those who are not already familiar with logic because the example he gives does not demonstrate very well that logic is dependent on syntax and pattern rather than the semantic truths contained within the meanings. His purpose would have been better served with an example more like, "Boxes are Round. Round things dance at parties. Therefore, boxes dance at parties."...something so hairbrained non-sensical there could be no doubt.
NosferatuD 2 years ago
It is not a good example of a prepositional 3 stage deduction (logic 101) since there are unstated quantifiers involved.
He says "wet goes through holes" (or something along those lines) when it's really "wet goes through *some* holes" which is the next level up (logical quantifiers):
∃H != ∅ [S.T.] {H ∈"WGT"}
instead of
∀H {H ∈"WGT"}
Leading to a false deduction in this case as skin may not be in the "WGT" set.
Your example is better but harder for the average person perhaps.
JamesBurkeWeb 2 years ago
I mean, the same argument proves that wet mugs have holes. We know it's false. Which is why I assumed it was *intended* to be wrong.
- JBW
JamesBurkeWeb 2 years ago