MonDie

Fairness is often self-contradictory. Examples include: using the same grading standard regardless of Down's syndrome; charging equal money for all types of pills; disallowing boys kissing boys and girls kissing girls; or serving everybody hotdogs regardless of preference.

Thanks! In case you didn't notice, Fresh is actually the one who brought this thread back.

I think this might be wrong. Straight from my notes: "Endospores are resistant to extremes and antibiotics. This is a problem because endospore-forming bacteria produce toxins responsible for fatal diseases such as tetanus, gangrene, and anthrax."

Where I can find a good account of pragmatic ethics? I've been reading the Stanford Encyclopedia entry about John Dewey's ethical system, but there seems to be very little ethical pragmatism. My understanding is that pragmatic ethics places moral value on inquiry under the assumption that society has progressed morally and will continue to progress morally through continued inquiry. I know that this could translate into a consequentialist theory with the ultimate end of making a freely inquiring society, but I have found shockingly little written on this aspect of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatic_ethics This is my formulation so far. If evaluative moral statements are meaningful, then any knowledge pertaining to their accuracy will help us be moral. Furthermore, if the morality of an action depends on what results from it (consequentialism), then some knowledge will help us identify and/or achieve desired results. The search for knowledge, inquiry, is morally good when the knowledge sought is a kind of knowledge mentioned above. Since the applicability of knowledge (philosophical, natural, or social) isn't known until the knowledge is obtained, all inquiry is potentially good on this moral dimension. Promoting or hindering inquiry tends to be good or bad, respectively, on this moral dimension. Concern: Are people more inclined to be moral or immoral? If the latter, then scientific knowledge will probably be used for more bad than good. This would make scientific inquiry immoral. 1) Some people are inclined to be noble, while others are inclined to be selfish or stupid. Stupidity doesn't tend toward morality or immorality, but selfishness might. 2) If the state of human affairs has progressivly improved, it could be attributed to our intellectual evolution, but it could also be attributed to us gradually adapting our surroundings to our needs. No conclusion was reached. Some Loosely Outlined Ideas Collective discrimination hinders inquiry by creating a slanted playing field. Percieved discrimination hinders inquiry by inducing the fear of discrimination. Succumbing to this fear is likewise immoral.

Anyone who's compelled to be armed 24/7 is probably paranoid and prone to over-react, shooting an innocent who happens to fit their personal schema of "deranged lunatic". Our stereotypes produce false-positives and false-negatives in judging whether someone is holding a weapon. Considering the low base rate combined with the availability heuristic, I would expect far more false-positives than false-negatives.

I just wore earmuffs for study and people were worried, so I gave them up. There were other factors: the giant backpack (cyclist commuter who enjoys his studies), out-of-place grinning (active imagination)... the coincidental username... Had this place been open-carry, someone might have shot me. Hopefully the 'good guy' would've had the sense to take a leg shot just in case.

That's good to know. I'm still trying to understand the last step of your simplification. I realized that my formula for neither of two mutually exclusive events occurring [math](1-a) \times \frac{1-b-a}{1-a}[/math] simplifies easily. [math]\frac{1-b-a}{1-a}[/math] is the probability that B hasn't occurred given that A hasn't occurred, but the whole thing simplifies to [math]1-b-a[/math]. I invented the formula trying to find the probability of a boardgame piece landing on a particular spot within the next x turns, a problem that didn't seem very intuitive at the time.

John, that not only explains why they must be equal, but can easily be used to to construct a formula that solves for the probability of failing 1 of 2 tests. Before I get to that, I want to further clarify your reasoning by restating it in my own words. In this instance, [math]{{n}\choose{x}}[/math] or alternatively [math]{{n}\choose{k}}[/math] is the number of ways to assign [math]k[/math] bad tubes within an [math]n[/math]-tuple of tubes. To calculate the probability of failing 1 of 2 tests with the two tests being performed on two members of the n-tuple, we need to calculate the number of variations on [math]{{n}\choose{k}}[/math] that assume 1 and only 1 of these members being assigned as a bad tube. This is easily calculated since there are two ways to fail 1 of 2 tests, and each way lends itself to [math]{{n-2}\choose{k-1}}[/math] permutations. This is the formula derived from your concepts. [math]2{{n-2}\choose{k-1}} \div {{n}\choose{k}}[/math] We can broaden its applicability by making [math]t[/math] and [math]f[/math] the number of tests and failures, respectively. [math]({{t}\choose{f}} \times {{n-t}\choose{k-f}}) \div {{n}\choose{k}}[/math] [math]{{n}\choose{k}} = \frac{n!}{k!(n-k)!}[/math] Below I have converted your variables to my variables, so I will be able relate my formula to yours. Note that I've converted your [math]x[/math] to [math]k[/math] to avoid ambiguity. INSERT: I gave up on comparing our formulae after realizing how complicated the task would be, as you're about to see. | yours to mine [math]n = \frac{1}{y}[/math] mine to yours [math]y = \frac{1}{n}[/math] | yours to mine [math]k = x \times n = \frac{x}{y}[/math] mine to yours [math]x = k \times y = \frac{k}{n}[/math] To compare mine to yours, I will need to make my formula into a solution to the same problem. Presently my formula [math]\frac{x(1-x)}{1-y}[/math] only solves for the probability of one specific ordering of failures. I think I can make it into a solution using another formula I invented. The probability that neither A nor B occur when A and B are mutually exclusive, letting a=P(A) and b=P(B), is [math](1-a) \times \frac{1-b-a}{1-a}[/math]. In this instance, A should be the event of failing only the first of two tests, and B failing only the second of two tests. Although this is looking like it will be a complicated solution, the alternative doesn't look much simpler. | [math]2{{n-2}\choose{k-1}} \div {{n}\choose{k}}[/math] You found the secret message! [math](2 \times \frac{(n-2)!}{(k-1)!((n-2)-(k-1))!}) \div \frac{n!}{k!(n-k)!}[/math] Simplify [math](2 \times \frac{(n-2)!}{(k-1)!(n-k-1)!}) \div \frac{n!}{k!(n-k)!}[/math]

NoScript?

Alternatively, it circumvented this problem by implementing false memories of pain. Granted this argument only works if your listener isn't currently in pain.

The hard part is noticing every instance in which a formula is applicable. I'll look at it again in the morning.

I mistakenly thought you wanted to talk about what makes something real.

You said: "But there is no guarantee that nature actually, literally works the way the equations might imply." Math is a language. My concept of "Swansont's kidney" isn't real nor accurate, but your kidney is definitely real. It's a hole. Are edges, tips, corners, and surfaces real? What about spots, or rebels? A rebel can only exist in the context of societal norms. Some things need context. Rebels, spots, and holes are similar in this respect.

What kind of notation is this?

The transcendental arguments for God put the cart before the horse because you can't read the Bible unless you trust your senses. You read with your senses, acquire language with your senses, and most importantly, observe the real world with your senses.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/81824-creationism-vs-reality/page-7#entry809939 I edited the post at 1:00, then made a new post at 3:17 that was automatically added to it. Now it says the post was edited at 1:00 PM and made at 3:17 PM (the time of the addendum).

To the OP I think directed evolution isn't mentioned enough in debates with creationists. It proves that you can get a brand new protein with a desired function simply by applying selective forces. Scientists use the technique because they don't know enough about protein function to design one themselves. I just found some free-to-read articles on the subject from NIH. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3424333/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22465795 I think this is great advice. I stopped believing in astrology when I realized how stupid and/or double-thinking most of the others were. Show the creationist that their stupid and/or dishonest role-models blatantly misrepresent our position. Attack the authority they appeal to.

Small sample size?

Mammals & birds conscious Fish nociception doesn't produce pain emotion. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130808123719.htm Control prisoner group vs. experimental prisoner group But what about that robot you programmed to say ouch? Couldn't you just programme it to say it feels such and such? And what about someone with locked in syndrome who cannot express much but we still imagine feels? The hypothesis that other people have minds like mine has incredible predictive value regarding what they will communicate to me. Don't forget that your mental experiences provide the basis for empiricism.

I stopped listening after an hour. I'll try Sam again when Sam tries dark roast coffee.

It's easy to draw hasty generalizations from correlations. Too much cow milk causes prostate cancer. Later research suggested that excess calcium is the mechanism, so there isn't anything uniquely bad in the cow milk.

Forget "tendency". What does "free will" mean (in a metaphysical context)?

general response

You're technically right. The first equation assumed 100 tubes total, with x as actual number of bad tubes. You test the tubes one at a time. x is the number of bad tubes out of 100. Tubes are not replaced after removal. Probability that first is bad and second is good. [math]\frac{x}{100}*\frac{100-x}{99}[/math] Probability that first is good and second is bad. [math]\frac{100-x}{100}*\frac{x}{99}[/math] To allow variation in tubes total, however, I needed to use proportions: either [math]\frac{x}{total}[/math], or [math]x = \frac{bad}{total}[/math]. The latter made the equations simple and readable.

The hole is defined by the surrounding material (or the expanded spatial relations ). Most things consist of both presences and absences. If I fill the contours of a motor with hot steel to make a solid block of steel, I'm not taking anything away, yet I take away its motor-likeness. Would you really contend that every block of pure steel has a motor inside? Maybe a better term would be "common endpoint". Rather than change independently, spatial relations always change in corresponding ways. For example, motion toward (lower distance from) you may correspond with motion away from (higher distance from) swansot. "Motion" of a "common endpoint" denotes the collaborative adjustment of all spatial relations having that common endpoint as one of two endpoints. It's like a spider web, but with distance values instead of strands of spider silk.