Trigger11 wrote:
As a scientist, this is seriously pissing me off:
Creationism MuseumAgreed.
I follow the
nntp://alt.support.autism newsgroup, and there's a "discussion" going on in there, between one character who is quite possibly a creationist, and another, who is perfectly rational.
I got carried away, and posted a thread that went:
lau wrote:
This is meant to be viewed as a "discussion"...
... between a rational and an irrational participant.
The shorthand is just "->" for "implies" and "" for "not".
I: A -> B.
R: Well, quite often, but not always. See: A -> P, but P -> \B.
I: But, C -> D.
R: Sorry? That's not what we were talking about.
Anyway, so far as that is concerned, C -> Q and Q -> \D.
I: E -> F.
R: I don't think that's always true either.
I've no solid example offhand, but E -> F is so unlikely.
I: Well, you admitted that A -> B, so you have to admit E -> F.
R: No I didn't! And you couldn't prove E -> F from A -> B anyway.
I: Yes I can... see A -> B and C -> D, therefore E -> F.
Q.E.D.
_________________
"Striking up conversations with strangers is an autistic person's version of extreme sports."
Kamran Nazeer