Thread hijack - ' If I can imagine it, it is possible!'

[kristalris]

 

Can it still be used as proof then?? I would argue not.

 

If you require the use of math for proof but use a flawed piece of math as the proof, then im left quite confused.

 

Is there no other way to conclusively show that you can imagine something that is illogical??

 

I think you could create a very strong argument against "if you can imagine it, it exists", but it should not include the use of paradox, im also not sure whether it would be conclusive.

For the Devil: you and YdaP really got it wrong even after having it properly explained to you.

 

Again: this is exact science! PRINT THIS PAGE AND HANG ABOVE BED (yes, everyone, unless you already agree) The BIG PICTURE as a rule of thumb:

 

From small to large then in scope yet vice versa in amount of required data:

 

· Deterministic Rotherford reasoning requires a lot of data, and because absolute truth is unattainable only to be accepted when you have a negligible error rate OR if you accept the error rate. So, even with a n1 you can use it on a probandum on what to do when the building is on fire on the question whether to run up or downstairs. The test: take apple and let go. If it falls down run up the stairs if it falls up run down the stairs. No statistics thus. Now bare in mind it might be that running up the stairs can save you and running down can hurt you. I guess you both now can grasp that this is not the way to solve this problem at hand? Or do you need me explain this further? This is nice to communicate with because it is simply Yin or Yang: black or white.

· The norm and method you use is dependent on several factors that have to be taken into consideration. A norm is only a convention. You can have your personal norm on when something is proven. For proof per definition means evidence giving a probative value past the norm.

· Now when we have less – required ( = NORM!)- data then we get in the realm of empirical statistics. Which as n1 in fact also covers (i.e. thus can be used in all situations) where one can reason deterministically.

· Now if you have even less data than that (there is an overlap) then you get into the realm of Bayesian – intuitive - statistics. THE REAM OF YIN - AND! - YANG. The grey area. I.e. you have to start guessing. DNA as forensic evidence is thus weak evidence for an exact scientist, yet at the same time strong evidence for a lawyer. Using any method must – logically – render the same result. It is not a discussion of one or the other but you - can - use both, which one depending on the probandum and amount of attainable data, risk to cost and speed of decision et cetera. Thus sometimes it is wrong to use one or the other see above n1 example.

· With even less data you get to Bayesian probabilistic reasoning being the mathematics of common sense.

· With even less data you get into the realm of pure non-mathematical logic. The scope of problems that can be tackled has become infinite. This is why we use verbal logic in the courtroom. Near infinitely complex problem and the need to take a decision fast with very little data = evidence. Even inherently unreliable data such as witnesses. Only by exception will you thus use mathematics then in answering the ultimate issue in legal matters (or everyday life in that matter.) Now there are nitwits who think that it is best to use Bayesian networks in courts. No too cumbersome, difficult (=> more chance of mistakes) and measuring on the thousandth of a millimeter with a confidence interval of meters. I.e. garbage in garbage out.

· Dictate of logic: when you deal with a problem you must address ALL the relevant questions.

· All these questions MUST be filled in as an educated guess if need be. An hypothesis.

 

 

Intuitive means with your gut feeling: using your imagination. THE MATHMATICS DICTATE THIS!

Mathematics is the language of logic ONLY when sufficient data is availleble.

 

So: on a question / probandum of TOE the norm of logic and thus science dictates you first use verbal logic, and then go from broad to fine, gathering more and more relevant data via testing hypothesis you IMAGINED (= intuitive BAYES!! = mathematics !!!!) to be true and thus is POSSIBLY (= probabilistic BAYES!!!) TRUE.

Now on the historic psychological truth I refer you to the thread arrogance and genius http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/79253-arrogance-vs-genius/page-5#entry776605

 

This also entails that science has gone haywire with DSM now V. That is based on Bayes. So, you MUST by rule of mathematics use your imagination or accept the error rate.

 

As rule of thumb a priori (= Bayes!) you thus can't expect on a probandum of what is true science concerning the human brain expect one best practice based on evidence based medicine. You would expect several side by side for the wise expert mind to choose from in order to view a greatly unknown phenomenon : the human brain and make a diagnoses in a specific case. DSM V: 1% of human population is a psychopath. Psychologists wounder why don't they act strange more? Easy pester a population like the Muslims enough and they will themselves or make others fly into twin towers. MN/ God/ Allah thought it wise to have people with no fear. Nice when it gets colder and you want to catch a bear. (I'm told bears have bad breath, and when you smell that, whilst trying to take off his coat poses somewhat of a problem (generaly speaking). For survival thus good to have them. Keep the balance and you don't have a problem. => DSM V = current science disturbs this survival balance. (This doesn't BTW mean that Twin Towers wasn't an attack warranting invading Afghanistan. IMO) I as a Dutchman feel that as an attack on me (= also NATO BTW). yet we dealt with the problem incorrectly in the past. Do it correctly then now, by proper reasoning. => get the team in order! The creative take the lead in R&D in the long run and in crises, see above link on arrogance and genius for historic example, why.

 

These then are the rules of string and stick. The basics of logic and math and thus science.

My math teacher thirty odd years ago stated: for mathematics all that is needed is a string and a straight stick on a sandy beach.

 

Now if you two (or anyone else for that matter) want a more thorough shellacking with this string and stick then by all means make my day and don’t throw in the towel.

Edited November 10, 2013 by kristalris