Nahhhh you take everything literally b/c you're stupid. You have no deductive reasoning skills. You're a zero.
And people that burn the flag hate the country. If you had common sense you'd see that, moron. Why burn the flag of a country that you love? Makes no sense. Idiot.
2
Armchair philosopher. Your deductive reasoning runs afoul of fact and logic. Political science is a course in institutions of higher learning. But thanks for trying.
4
49m
Finished up "The Modeling of Nature" by Wallace. Part 1 introduces a modernized hylomorphic ontology of naturally occurring form-matter composites that express causal powers. Part 2 defends an epistemic realist philosophy of science as the study of those causal powers via demonstrative regress. The hypothesis of the modern hypothetio-deductive reasoning is reframed as the middle term(s) of a syllogism, with a selection of historical examples from optics, astronomy, biochem, etc.
A work of summary moreso than one of analysis. It can feel a bit meandering and superficial at times, but the explicit intention of the author was that only a high school education is required to pick up the book and get a conceptual understanding, so I suppose that can be forgiven. It does cover a lot of foundational ground and serves as a good classical introduction to a philosophy of nature and science, highlighting that since the object of science is nature, the philosophies of each are inseparably linked.
2
70
You still stuck on day three 🙄 geez . I didn’t wanna be mean but did you ever learn deductive reasoning ? It used often in texts and social media comments . Kinna like when you say txt me you have the mental capability of understanding that means text me . You’re an annoying fk
6
...deductive reasoning is the ONLY TOOL that takes you to objective truth. Senses can be deceiving. Yes, there's such thing as BASIC reliability of sense perception, but there's no such thing as TOTAL reliability of sense perception. For that reason, senses alone aren't enough to
1
11
It’s a little thing called deductive logic… I get critical thought is not high up on the MAGA “strength list” as that does require a functional prefrontal cortex which, post like yours, highly suggest it’s far from being fully developed.
1
8
I already explained that REASON demands an ETERNAL BEING exists in order to explain the universe. But you don't get it.
1) The universe has a beginning-> it demands a cause
2) its cause can't have a beginning->must be eternal
Deductive reasoning.
1
5
There's only one thing that is eternal and that's the Creator of the Universe.
1) the universe is an EFFECT-> what's the cause?
2) its cause CAN'T itself be an effect -> MUST be eternal.
Deductive reasoning.
Someone somewhere is ETERNAL or else the universe wouldn't exist.
1
6
I know this:
The Universe is an EFFECT, which requires a CAUSE.
That cause can't be an effect but MUST be eternal.
That's simple deductive reasoning, which you don't seem to be able to do.
1
6
Interesting.
I attended Prof Bruce Lusignan's post-grad course "Space Systems" (Systems Engineering) at the Stanford University Engineering School in 1968-69 - probably the best university course I ever attended - when the subject of space "power stations" was brought up in the context of natural resources information systems. The discussion covered the idea of having "plugins" of dedicated complex knowledge engineering solutions (then described as operations research models) based on deductive and diagnostic procedural logic fed by and feeding communications links.
Lusignan was already talking then about hand held up and down satellite links based on multi-spectral communications.
It strikes me that moving away from the LLMs towards specialized applications-specific maybe using Altera type programmable logic to speed up prototyping would be able to identify really important productivity enhancing applications in industry and manufacturing.
Using Altera chips it would be possible to update chips in place and in space remotely economizing on rocket trips.
1
2
27
814
My stubbornness has the major role. My intuition and experience of systemic establishment policies in medicine and every other institution has fueled my desire to know and understand that only mass non-compliance is what will set us free. Not lawlessness mind you but bold unashamed resistance and vocal opposition. Enmasse. In short LIBERTY to say no to that which is by simple deductive reasoning is utterly stupid and ridiculous. I stand my ground. It is our God given right to do so.
1
3
87
Yes, but engineers also need to search for a specification.
If an engineer tries to write a formal specification, they’re preparing themselves for a cold, humiliating shower.
After attempting this several times, I wish I’d started with formal methods much earlier.
So at the start, specification research is the big issue.
One area where AI can help enormously is the structural specification: collecting all notifications and request/reply events, data structures (even at a high level), all actors, all invariants, etc. This is massive work, very time-consuming, and AI can collect it fast.
Then it gets harder.
For every behaviour, a state machine must be defined — i.e., for each actor, for each possible notification or request that actor can receive, in each possible state that actor can be in.
This means that until the knowledge-accumulation problem is solved for both the structural and behavioral specifications, there’s no trust moat yet.
Once all the specification knowledge is collected and formalized, it has to be rewritten — no specification survives contact with the real world.
That’s the moment where the moat you mentioned is actually encountered: not only did the initial draft specification probably miss something, but we also need to trust what was written as the initial implementation of it.
Deterministic simulation testing, together with hierarchical state machines, is what lets the programmer explore the specification against reality and cross that moat.
But there’s an ocean before a spec is even good enough for the real world.
That’s where a concept database with the right meta-model can support the programmer.
ConceptBase, with its O-Telos data model, unlimited instantiation levels, and deductive rules, is a good candidate substrate — not because deduction validates the spec (that’s DST’s job), but because it lets most of the collected knowledge be derived rather than written by hand: actors, events, and invariants entered once at one abstraction level can be propagated, classified, and cross-referenced automatically across the others.
Hooked up via MCP, an AI agent can populate and query this continuously, doing by machine what would take a person months by hand.
The remaining hard problem is the mapping: designing the meta-model so that collection is mostly derivation, while DST remains the tool that actually explores whether the spec holds up.
1
30
I strongly disagree with this idea. All the proponents of this idea have nothing to offer that counts as actual evidence. Just statistical probabilities and deductive speculation. No inductive observation. Elon's a lot smarter than me, but I still disagree with him here.
2
15
Deductive reasoning, FTW.
I like the cut of your jib and would subscribe to your newsletter....if I had two thin dimes to rub together.
5
RT @mjtoestand: Daily condescending reminder that if you believe Michael Jackson was guilty, you have the deductive reasoning of a rock, an…
11
incidentally (but absolutely not relevant) - makeup's purpose being provocative absolutely isn't settled fact, even from a pure deductive standpoint - you'd have to explain why people don't just wear red lipstick but other colours, why purple blush is a thing, etc
1
14