Subject:
|
Re: This should be required reading for this group...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 25 Sep 2002 21:16:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
256 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes:
> > http://www.akat.com/reasoning.htm
>
> Or why it's a must read. The people that would benefit from reading it won't
> do so or won't understand the point it makes. :-)
Agree. I can see someone looking at the example with the company buying the
half-million dollar purchase, commenting on how obviously absurd it was to
consider it "reasonable", and then going ahead and making the same mistake
without a 2nd thought.
Essay had some issues with it, though. I kinda was annoyed with the 1st
example of the chess game, mostly because I would hold that the children
were making a reasonable, though inaccurate conclusion, based on their
conclusion and my definition of "accurate". If I played a game like chess
for years, wherein one could "castle" the king more than once (if the other
rook hadn't moved), I'd still feel justified in calling the game "chess".
Similarly, if I produced 2 chess rulebooks, one with each ruleset, who's to
say which is correct? Chess is a socially defined game, not an absolute. The
evidence the children have as to whether they are playing chess or not is
correct, just incomplete. So, they're being reasonable, they just don't have
all the evidence.
There were a couple other things in there that I wasn't especially keen
on... We just need someone to define what it means to make a "logical
conclusion". IE at what point does a *VIABLE* conclusion pass for a
*LOGCIAL* one? And honestly I don't think there's a consistant answer for
that one...
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
9 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
