Now another excellent example just occured to me as to why Mr. Jayriginal's position on the issue of "assumptions" and proof for the cause and effect notion, is so horribly horribly wrong.As frighteningly illogical as Jayriginal can be, I will be shocked if even he can deny this very clear example puts his position to death.

The example I wish to give is that of fingerprints. It is accepted scientific knowledge that no two humans have identical finger prints - that fingerprints are all unique. This is completely accepted in science such that fingerprint evidence is used in criminal matters as binding real evidence.

And yet, there has never been a time in history when all the fingerprints of all human beings have ALL been analysed so as to conclude that there are in fact no two identical fingerprints.

This puts paid to Jayriginal's notion that assuming the law of cause and effect on a cosmic scale is a compositional fallacy:-

Because the simple reality is that that which has been observed is that no two people have the same finger prints. Going with Jayriginal's argument, any person can sit back and say that this well known scientfic fact is only an assumption or a compositional fallacy: because the whole of humanity has not been observed - nor can ever be: because even if every person on the planet today has his fingerprints analysed, it will be impossible to analyse the finger prints of the millions of people that have lived and died or the billions more yet to be born. As such, there will NEVER be a time when the whole of humanity will have had their fingerprints analysed so as to ground the fact that no two fingerprints can EVER be the same.

Nonetheless: the simple truth is that in that which we observe as true of human anatomy: no two finger prints have been observed to be the same. We thus have valid grounds for considering it true and correct to say that it is indeed true that finger prints are unique.

Now, here is the core and central point: the issue of proof - if someone were to come along asking questions about the validity of the notion that finger prints are unique - ON WHOM WOULD THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIE TO SHOW THAT FINGER PRINTS ARE OR ARE NOT UNIQUE?

The simple fact is that since in our common observation, finger prints as far as we know are indeed unique to each person, if any person will claim the contrary, or even say that such is a mere assumption, or does not necessarily apply to all humans, or even question the uniqueness of finger prints, then clearly, THAT person will have the burden of proof for shewing the reasons for his doubts - ALL he will have to do is to [b]show just one single example of two humans with the same finger prints, and the matter will be closed forever.

How reasonable would it be for him to refuse to show such an example AND THEN contend that the well known unique nature of finger prints is a mere assumption AND THEN insist that since we have not seen all finger prints, the statement that finger prints are unique is a COMPOSITIONAL FALLACY - and wait for it - on top of all that, when we say to him that "as far as we know, finger prints are unique" - he reverts with saying that since that is only "as far as we know," then the statement that finger prints are unique is an argument from ignorance!

Does this make sense to anybody?

Now this is the terrifying illogic which Jayriginal has repeatedly stated with regard to the applicability of the law of cause and effect for material phenomena. Mind you, in the case of the law of cause and effect, it is far worse because cause and effect is far more intrinsic to material reality than any thing about finger prints. I also gave him an example about whether or not we have observed all the planets in the universe. Both these examples absolutely show the nonsense he is talking when he says that it is a mere assumption that the universe is caused.

More importanly, they show how awfully misplaced his understanding of the terms "argument from ignorance" and "compositional fallacy" are. He does not realize that in the very s.illy way that he reads these terms, they can be applied to say that ANY statement whatsoever, is only an assumption or a compositional fallacy - or an argument from ignorance. To the extent that I have not seen all cats in the world, and no one has, it can also be said to be a mere assumption or compositional fallacy that cats have four legs. Or an argument from ignorance, as he says.

Infact, his good friend Idehn, would by his own arguments, say that a cat with five legs is natural, since it can occur.

Good morning Ladies and Gentlemen. Arise and greet absurdity itself.

^^^^
Beautifully said.

I simply and only wished that your opponents are so logical.

Peace men. You deserved a bottle of champagne.

Deep Sight,

You have put paid to nothing.

Its shocking how simple things such as this evade your grasp.

Using finger prints as an example does not touch on the compositional fallacy.

Whenever, you infer the whole from the parts, you commit a compositional fallacy. Simple ! Why do I need to repeat this to you ad infinitum ?

I shouldnt need to tell you this but apparently everything must be simplified for you. Here goes: A FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT IS NOT NECESSARILY AN INCORRECT ARGUMENT. It does however beg for better construction.

As an example, if I pile 12,000 bricks on top of each other and call it "the 12 brick", and an observer pulls out a few bricks and state that the entire structure is made from bricks, he would be correct. That would not stop it from suffering from the compositional fallacy, as he is infering the whole from the part.

Quite often, fallacious arguments are deeply flawed, but not always. Is this clear enough for you ?

Now, if you say everything you observe in your local experience obeys the law of "cause and effect", and then on the basis of that, you give your experience universal scope, you are committing the fallacy of composition. Your position may or may not be correct, but it is certainly unconvincing when couched in those terms.

Next, I ask you how you know this and you turn round to ask me how I know it isnt (when I havent said it isnt). When you ask someone to accept a proposition simply because the opposite is not known or proven, you are arguing from ignorance.

This is basic Deep Sight, dont make me have to explain this again to you. You must learn how to argue.

And on to the cat with 5 legs, that is unusual, but not impossible. A bad example you must agree.

From ones experience it is enough to say cats have four legs ( as a general statement ) but not cats have only four legs (as an exclusive statement). The only way the exclusive statement will work is when cats are defined with four legs inclusive and being a necessary component of that definition, and as such anything more or less than four legs will exclude the specie in question from being a cat.

This is what happens when you try to prove god with logic. You blunder fluently and refuse to correct yourself.

Are fingerprints really infallible, unique ID?

How unique are your fingerprints? It's general held (and as er, The Register confidently stated just yesterday) that your fingerprints being found at the scene of the crime tied you up with it pretty conclusively, but a report published earlier this year by New Scientist claims that there is little scientific basis for the infallibility of fingerprints, and that the only research indicating that there is, is fatally flawed.

This could have major implications for the criminal justice system, and could undermine the basic premise of planned ID sytems in the UK, US and Europe. The report notes that the only known study, commissioned b y the US Department of Justice and only made public in summary form, was challenged in December. The study involved matching up 50,000 fingerprint images, and concluded from this that the probability of a false match was effectively zero. However, says New Scientist, "Although this produced an impressive-sounding 2.5 billion comparisons, critics point out that it is hardly surprising that a specific image should turn out to be more like itself than 49,999 other images."

The study wasn't designed to test matches between two or more different prints from the same finger, and it was even discovered that it originally included three instances of fingerprints being listed as similar but different, when they were actually different prints from the same finger. One pair was even found to be as dissimilar as prints from different people. And the sample size is seen by many critics as being too small to be seen as valid.

Despite the apparently shaky foundations of the little 'proof' that exists, there seems to be no government enthusiasm for further research. The DoJ has refused to sanction further research, and a Department of Defense and National Institute of Justice programme fell apart last year after arguments over dissemination and review of the material.

New Scientist points out that fingerprint evidence still has a value, but that it's such a long-standing technique that it has never been subjected to rigorous scientific scrutiny. This could well be its undoing, as ID systems' need to match up prints from millions of people takes fingerprinting into entirely uncharted territory. It would surely be just a little bit embarrassing if a few years down the line governments' deployment of fingerprints in the war on terror resulted in the near overthrow of the criminal justice system, wouldn't it? ®

www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/06/identity/

A distraction, but maybe you will get the hint.

And finally, on the issue of burden of proof, well I'm surprised you still say this.

If you say all fingerprints are unique, you make a claim. Anyone is within their rights to ask how you know this. Your response should be to set out in detail how you acquired this knowledge in such a way that it becomes plain to the reasonable man. If your explanation is sufficient, then the matter should be settled. In fact, your response may not be a hundred percent satisfactory but it may enough to accept "generally".

You dont prove your point by asking your opponent to prove the opposite or to disprove your point. If you make a highly specific assertion, you must back it up with like proof, and not generalities or fallacious arguments.

I knew beforehand ALL the responses you would give; I did not expect you to understand the subtleties: I only bothered to write all that for the benefit of third parties and not for you.

I will only ask you the following: and please give me short direct unequivocal answers.

Finger Prints.

1. Is it a compositional fallacy to state that all human finger prints are unique?

2. Is it an argument from ignorance to state that all human finger prints are unique?

3. Is it an assumption to state that all human finger prints are unique?

4. Have we observed all human finger prints in existence?

Planets

1. Is it a compositional fallacy to state that all planets in the universe have a gravitational pull?

2. Is it an argument from ignorance to state that all planets in the universe have a gravitational pull ?

3. Is it an assumption to state that all planets in the universe have a gravitational pull?

4. Have we observed all planets in the universe?

Yes or no will do PLEASE. Just assume I am the id.iot and be patient enough to answer these succinctly as a charitable act to my da.ftness.

Thanks.

jayriginal:

A distraction, but maybe you will get the hint.

Your study refers to the views and management of print impressions and not the specific questions as to actually whether there are people with exactly identical finger prints. An irrelevant distraction indeed.

Especially because it tragically misses the pith of the analogy made, as you surely already know.

jayriginal:

If you say all fingerprints are unique, you make a claim. Anyone is within their rights to ask how you know this. Your response should be to set out in detail how you acquired this knowledge in such a way that it becomes plain to the reasonable man.

Lol. Did anyone notice this joke? Plain to the reasonable man ? Plain to the reasonable man ? ? Plain to the reasonable man? ? ?

Lol. So Jayriginal, it honestly misses you that this is what I have been screaming myself hoarse about. That these things are self-evidential and plain to the reasonable man. The uniqueness of fingerprints is plain to the reasonable man because no two persons have been seen with the exact same prints, ever. The validity of cause and effect is even more self-evidential and plain to the reasonable man. As such it is not that these very self-evident precepts have to be proved - rather - if anyone questions them, then he needs to disprove them - because they are self evident and plain to the reasonable man.

Oya, go ahead and say that cause and effect is NOT plain to the reasonable man. In fact, that one, I double - dare you.

Can anyone say that the law of cause and effect has to be proved and explained to a reasonable man - in that - it is as yet unproven or unexplained ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Is it not the case that it is rather already well proven - and needs to be disproven by anyone who questions it?

In fact, i throw a challenge. I contend that there is NOTHING WHATSOEVER that has ever been as adamantly and repeatedly proven in our reality, as the law of cause and effect. NOTHING WHATSOEVER. NOT ONE SINGLE PHENOMENON AT ALL. Infact, EVERY PROVEN PHENOMENON is proven with reference to, and by the law of cause and effect. Nothing is proven without reference to that basic precept. NOTHING. I challenge Jayriginal to mention ONE such thing. Just ONE.

But watch it: he will not: he will say that he has no need to produce examples! Lol! Unbelievable chap!

I have explained previously to Jayriginal that the entirety of science itself, is an inquiry into causality. I honestly don't know how such a basic fact could elude him in his notions about "cause and effect being a mere assumption." I might re phrase it by equally saying that there would be no such thing as science or scientific inquiry, but for the fact of cause and effect. ALL science rests on cause and effect. ALL.

Cause and effect being proven at cosmic scales is a fact because the cosmos consists of matter: and as such we know that since causality operates in reference to matter, a material universe must operate same. This is the very same way in which we can legitimately and logically infer that all planets must have a gravitational pull, even when we have not seen them all: because we know the properties of planets and the laws necessary to keep them suspended in space.

I honestly cannot believe such nonsense. Especially when packaged with nonsensical and presumptuous arrogance. I am well known as a most unserious person - otherwise I would not be responding to such piffle. More serious minds than mine would simply smile and ignore this trash.

Deep Sight: I knew beforehand ALL the responses you would give; I did not expect you to understand the subtleties: I only bothered to write all that for the benefit of third parties and not for you.

I will only ask you the following: and please give me short direct unequivocal answers.

Finger Prints.

1. Is it a compositional fallacy to state that all human finger prints are unique?

2. Is it an argument from ignorance to state that all human finger prints are unique?

3. Is it an assumption to state that all human finger prints are unique?

4. Have we observed all human finger prints in existence?

Planets

1. Is it a compositional fallacy to state that all planets in the universe have a gravitational pull?

2. Is it an argument from ignorance to state that all planets in the universe have a gravitational pull ?

3. Is it an assumption to state that all planets in the universe have a gravitational pull?

4. Have we observed all planets in the universe?

Yes or no will do PLEASE. Just assume I am the id.iot and be patient enough to answer these succinctly as a charitable act to my da.ftness.

Thanks.

O, and with reference to the "subtleties" which I refer to you as missing - - - > If you answer "No" to ANY of these questions, then ponder why, and you will get it. In fact, since you are so tiresome, I should say it outright - - - > The reason is - logical inference when same elements are at play. As simple as comparing apples to apples.

Simples.

Regrettably, I know I will have to write an epistle on such a simple statement before you understand it. In fact, after I do that, you will still not, but I will do so anyway for the benefit of third party readers.

What an emotional tirade.

You seem not to understand the argument from ignorance or compositional fallacy.

Your finger print is a bad analogy to use to demonstrate the compositional fallacy simply because fingerprints do not add up to form anything.

Stating that all fingerprints are unique will not of itself be an argument from ignorance. It becomes an argument from ignorance when you state that it must be so if one cannot prove the opposite. Elementary my dear Watson.

All human fingerprints are unique, is a statement. Whether it is an assumption or not will depend on the facts behind the statement.

And yes, I knew you'd stumble over the "reasonable" man test. Its an inside joke but you dont seem to understand it. Allow me to sort you out.
Anyone, can make a general statement, a statement that accords with our common experience. In fact, you are on safe ground there, walking the path of least resistance. However, just because we dont know that X is there, it doesnt mean X is not there. Likewise, just because we dont know X is, doesnt mean X isnt.

Sometimes, in matters like this, you undertake to exhaust every alternate possibility to show that yours must necessarily be correct. If you fail to consider any other possibility and deal with it, then you leave yourself open.

Now, this is not a gamble where you bet with or against the odds. Using the finger print examples, they play the odds of any two finger prints being the same (even finger prints from the same finger).

This is an "either, or" matter (at least for now). All, you have done is to superimpose your common experience; the same experience that would tell your kind of "reasonable man" that what is thrown up will always come down. No, you must look beyond common experience to discover the truth. And if common experience holds true, so be it. All you are doing is spewing generalities. What you missed is DETAIL. Detail, not generalities. All your talk about cause and effect is diversionary. Scope is important. Stop using red herrings to distract from the core of matter.

Any amateur can sit down in his backyard and say "Whatever begins to exist has a cause" and deem himself a great philosopher. However, people that make it their life to research and study these things have realized that reality does not have to conform to our expectations or common experience.

I have asked you to prove and what you adduce as evidence (classical physics) is widely acknowledged to have little or no application at the singularity which I believe you accept. Instead, you ask me for a counter example when I have not said there is one. You even volunteered one yourself but have so far failed to explain the cause.

Your "proof" is as of yet unsatisfactory. That is the truth though you may not like it.

You seek to evade core science by means of quaint philosophical devices and the regular ad hominem.

Word of advice, a wise man does not speak in absolutes unless he is absolutely sure. Enough with the 10kobo philosophy.

PS
Oh, and speaking of foreknowledge, before the Darwins Day thread, I knew your position (and said so). Theres nothing special in that.

^^^ Can you just answer the specific questions I put to you in Yes or no terms - or is that impossible?

If impossible, why?

What you miss is that comparing apples for apples is not a compositional fallacy. If I see that metal melts when subjected to heat, I can conclude that greater metal will melt when subjected to greater heat. This is apples for apples. You mis-understand the argumentative terms you use. Similarly making conclusions based on observed phenomena is not arguing from ignorance. Quite the reverse actually. As such you goof the entire argument.

But to make it simple and obvious, please don't be a coward: just attempt the questions I set out on a yes or no basis: else give reasons why you can't do that.

Thank you Sir.

Deep Sight:
^^^ Can you just answer the specific questions I put to you in Yes or no terms - or is that impossible?

If impossible, why?

But I did didnt I ?

Look at my response. Its embedded.

Briefly, one can not answer yes or no to those questions because a statement itself is either true or false. Those are all statements. Fallacies come in by virtue of reasoning. In other words your reasons for making those statements. Not unless you go about making statements and expecting people to take them at face value.

Deep Sight: I knew beforehand ALL the responses you would give; I did not expect you to understand the subtleties: I only bothered to write all that for the benefit of third parties and not for you.

I will only ask you the following: and please give me short direct unequivocal answers.

Finger Prints.

1. Is it a compositional fallacy to state that all human finger prints are unique?

2. Is it an argument from ignorance to state that all human finger prints are unique?

3. Is it an assumption to state that all human finger prints are unique?

4. Have we observed all human finger prints in existence?

Planets

1. Is it a compositional fallacy to state that all planets in the universe have a gravitational pull?

2. Is it an argument from ignorance to state that all planets in the universe have a gravitational pull ?

3. Is it an assumption to state that all planets in the universe have a gravitational pull?

4. Have we observed all planets in the universe?

Yes or no will do PLEASE. Just assume I am the id.iot and be patient enough to answer these succinctly as a charitable act to my da.ftness.

Thanks.

THESE are the questions i would like yes or no answers to: or reasons why you can't give yes or no answers.

Thanks again.

jayriginal:

But I did didnt I ?

Look at my response. Its embedded.

Briefly, one can not answer yes or no to those questions because a statement itself is either true or false. Those are all statements. Fallacies come in by virtue of reasoning. In other words your reasons for making those statements. Not unless you go about making statements and expecting people to take them at face value.

Please don't run away from simple questions sir. You know very well that those statements are in fact argumentative inferences from observation. So please do not cop out. Simple answers won't break your back. I ask these questions very deliberately.

Thanks again.

Oh no.
They are statements and that is all. Its not a cop out, it is cold logic. A statement is not an argument.

jayriginal: Oh no.
They are statements and that is all. Its not a cop out, it is cold logic. A statement is not an argument.

Lol. I see you cannot answer the questions - - - > as I predicted.

I am happy to leave things at that. Third party readers will draw their conclusions.

Off to dinner. Good evening.

Nope. You cannot ask me if a statement is a fallacy. That is wrong. I didnt write the rules.

Enjoy - - - ->

Deep Sight:

You know very well that those statements are in fact argumentative inferences from observation.

Any honest participant knows the truth about my above quote.

Enjoy.

You need to set out the arguments. I wouldnt want to be a meddlesome interloper.

jayriginal: You need to set out the arguments. I wouldnt want to be a meddlesome interloper.

Done already. . . . exhaustively. . . . but if you choose to be escapist, no wahala. Like I said, I write not for you but for the third party reader. I am confident that third party readers will draw their conclusions appropriately.

So. . . . .Enjoy!

No you didnt. If you did, point me to where you did.

The reason I am asking you to set them out is because I cannot be bothered with assuming what your arguments are. Anyone can make statements, but it is the reasoning behind such statements that is important.

Eg consider the statement; "My cat is black".

That statement is either true or false. It is not fallacious. If you dispute this and ask how I know my cat is black, suppose I reply, "It is black because it is not yellow", thats fallacious reasoning. In other words, the premise does not support the conclusion.

This does nothing to affect the truth of the statement because while the reasoning is faulty, my cat may in fact be black.

However, from my reasoning, you have good grounds for suspending belief in my statement.

That is why I ask you to set out your arguments. I cant do much with mere statements.

Deep Sight:

Can you tell me if it is an assumption or a compositional fallacy to state that all planets in the universe will have some gravitational pull about them.

Can you tell me whether we have observed all planets in the universe.

If I say to you that planets have a gravitational pull about them - is that an assumption, or is it a valid statement arising from what we have seen about planets?



Following from the example of planets and gravity above, so long as the singularity is matter, we can draw the same valid statements regarding causality.

Glad! Later!

Deep Sight: Now another excellent example just occured to me as to why Mr. Jayriginal's position on the issue of "assumptions" and proof for the cause and effect notion, is so horribly horribly wrong.As frighteningly illogical as Jayriginal can be, I will be shocked if even he can deny this very clear example puts his position to death.

The example I wish to give is that of fingerprints. It is accepted scientific knowledge that no two humans have identical finger prints - that fingerprints are all unique. This is completely accepted in science such that fingerprint evidence is used in criminal matters as binding real evidence.

And yet, there has never been a time in history when all the fingerprints of all human beings have ALL been analysed so as to conclude that there are in fact no two identical fingerprints.

This puts paid to Jayriginal's notion that assuming the law of cause and effect on a cosmic scale is a compositional fallacy:-

Because the simple reality is that that which has been observed is that no two people have the same finger prints. Going with Jayriginal's argument, any person can sit back and say that this well known scientfic fact is only an assumption or a compositional fallacy: because the whole of humanity has not been observed - nor can ever be: because even if every person on the planet today has his fingerprints analysed, it will be impossible to analyse the finger prints of the millions of people that have lived and died or the billions more yet to be born. As such, there will NEVER be a time when the whole of humanity will have had their fingerprints analysed so as to ground the fact that no two fingerprints can EVER be the same.

Nonetheless: the simple truth is that in that which we observe as true of human anatomy: no two finger prints have been observed to be the same. We thus have valid grounds for considering it true and correct to say that it is indeed true that finger prints are unique.

Now, here is the core and central point: the issue of proof - if someone were to come along asking questions about the validity of the notion that finger prints are unique - ON WHOM WOULD THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIE TO SHOW THAT FINGER PRINTS ARE OR ARE NOT UNIQUE?

The simple fact is that since in our common observation, finger prints as far as we know are indeed unique to each person, if any person will claim the contrary, or even say that such is a mere assumption, or does not necessarily apply to all humans, or even question the uniqueness of finger prints, then clearly, THAT person will have the burden of proof for shewing the reasons for his doubts - ALL he will have to do is to [b]show just one single example of two humans with the same finger prints, and the matter will be closed forever.

How reasonable would it be for him to refuse to show such an example AND THEN contend that the well known unique nature of finger prints is a mere assumption AND THEN insist that since we have not seen all finger prints, the statement that finger prints are unique is a COMPOSITIONAL FALLACY - and wait for it - on top of all that, when we say to him that "as far as we know, finger prints are unique" - he reverts with saying that since that is only "as far as we know," then the statement that finger prints are unique is an argument from ignorance!

Does this make sense to anybody?

Now this is the terrifying illogic which Jayriginal has repeatedly stated with regard to the applicability of the law of cause and effect for material phenomena. Mind you, in the case of the law of cause and effect, it is far worse because cause and effect is far more intrinsic to material reality than any thing about finger prints. I also gave him an example about whether or not we have observed all the planets in the universe. Both these examples absolutely show the nonsense he is talking when he says that it is a mere assumption that the universe is caused.

More importanly, they show how awfully misplaced his understanding of the terms "argument from ignorance" and "compositional fallacy" are. He does not realize that in the very s.illy way that he reads these terms, they can be applied to say that ANY statement whatsoever, is only an assumption or a compositional fallacy - or an argument from ignorance. To the extent that I have not seen all cats in the world, and no one has, it can also be said to be a mere assumption or compositional fallacy that cats have four legs. Or an argument from ignorance, as he says.

Infact, his good friend Idehn, would by his own arguments, say that a cat with five legs is natural, since it can occur.

Good morning Ladies and Gentlemen. Arise and greet absurdity itself.

Deep Sight:

Lol. Did anyone notice this joke? Plain to the reasonable man ? Plain to the reasonable man ? ? Plain to the reasonable man? ? ?

Lol. So Jayriginal, it honestly misses you that this is what I have been screaming myself hoarse about. That these things are self-evidential and plain to the reasonable man. The uniqueness of fingerprints is plain to the reasonable man because no two persons have been seen with the exact same prints, ever. The validity of cause and effect is even more self-evidential and plain to the reasonable man. As such it is not that these very self-evident precepts have to be proved - rather - if anyone questions them, then he needs to disprove them - because they are self evident and plain to the reasonable man.

Oya, go ahead and say that cause and effect is NOT plain to the reasonable man. In fact, that one, I double - dare you.

Can anyone say that the law of cause and effect has to be proved and explained to a reasonable man - in that - it is as yet unproven or unexplained ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Is it not the case that it is rather already well proven - and needs to be disproven by anyone who questions it?

In fact, i throw a challenge. I contend that there is NOTHING WHATSOEVER that has ever been as adamantly and repeatedly proven in our reality, as the law of cause and effect. NOTHING WHATSOEVER. NOT ONE SINGLE PHENOMENON AT ALL. Infact, EVERY PROVEN PHENOMENON is proven with reference to, and by the law of cause and effect. Nothing is proven without reference to that basic precept. NOTHING. I challenge Jayriginal to mention ONE such thing. Just ONE.

But watch it: he will not: he will say that he has no need to produce examples! Lol! Unbelievable chap!

I have explained previously to Jayriginal that the entirety of science itself, is an inquiry into causality. I honestly don't know how such a basic fact could elude him in his notions about "cause and effect being a mere assumption." I might re phrase it by equally saying that there would be no such thing as science or scientific inquiry, but for the fact of cause and effect. ALL science rests on cause and effect. ALL.

Cause and effect being proven at cosmic scales is a fact because the cosmos consists of matter: and as such we know that since causality operates in reference to matter, a material universe must operate same. This is the very same way in which we can legitimately and logically infer that all planets must have a gravitational pull, even when we have not seen them all: because we know the properties of planets and the laws necessary to keep them suspended in space.

I honestly cannot believe such nonsense. Especially when packaged with nonsensical and presumptuous arrogance. I am well known as a most unserious person - otherwise I would not be responding to such piffle. More serious minds than mine would simply smile and ignore this trash.

Set out extensively already. Can't repeat myself.

PhysicsQED: Just for the record, I don't have any dislike of Newton. The man was one of the greatest geniuses that ever lived. Even two thousand years from now, whenever anyone is compiling a list of the greatest thinkers who ever lived, he would still make the top 5 in the lists of most people that are scientifically literate. Also, quantum mechanics is not really the basis (certainly not mine, anyway) for rejecting the old Newtonian view of time. Perhaps you meant to say relativity. Even Leibniz, Newton's contemporary and a man almost as brilliant as Newton, rejected the Newtonian view of time, as did Ernst Mach in his own time, but it would take Einstein to really replace it.

Einstein's use of the word "time", as I said earlier, has NOTHING to do with real time.

Deep Sight:

Set out extensively already. Can't repeat myself.

But I addressed them didnt I ?

At the very least, today, I dismissed of the fingerprint example in relation to the compositional fallacy.

jayriginal:

But I addressed them didnt I ?

At the very least, today, I dismissed of the fingerprint example in relation to the compositional fallacy.

Nah mate. Not even a scratch. You simply blatantly ran from the direct questions offered. But I leave it to readers to arrive at their conclusions.

Deep Sight:

Nah mate. Not even a scratch. But I leave it to readers to arrive at their conclusions.

I did. That its not acceptable to you doesnt mean anything but that.


Ah, I see your edit.

I did not run away from nothing. The position is really simple. You want to force issues but you must play by rules. If you do, I will engage you.

jayriginal:

I did. That its not acceptable to you doesnt mean anything but that.


Ah, I see your edit.

I did not run away from nothing. The position is really simple. You want to force issues but you must play by rules. If you do, I will engage you.

Answer my questions mate. Can't be that hard. You're making it look hard.

The questions were about planets and finger prints and I have shown in my long quotes above where I made the relevant arguments backing up those conclusions. That is why I said you know very well that those statements are argumentative inferences. Anything else is dishonesty.

Read my posts: the substantive arguments are everywhere: as quoted above.

Just answer the questions if you can. Simple.

Don't make this another long embarrassment where you refuse when called out on simple things abeg.

Deep Sight: I knew beforehand ALL the responses you would give; I did not expect you to understand the subtleties: I only bothered to write all that for the benefit of third parties and not for you.

I will only ask you the following: and please give me short direct unequivocal answers.

Finger Prints.

1. Is it a compositional fallacy to state that all human finger prints are unique?

2. Is it an argument from ignorance to state that all human finger prints are unique?

3. Is it an assumption to state that all human finger prints are unique?

4. Have we observed all human finger prints in existence?

Planets

1. Is it a compositional fallacy to state that all planets in the universe have a gravitational pull?

2. Is it an argument from ignorance to state that all planets in the universe have a gravitational pull ?

3. Is it an assumption to state that all planets in the universe have a gravitational pull?

4. Have we observed all planets in the universe?

Yes or no will do PLEASE. Just assume I am the id.iot and be patient enough to answer these succinctly as a charitable act to my da.ftness.

Thanks.

Here are the questions again.

It seems these questions have become a nightmare for you. Are you afraid of the dark?

Come now, there's no bogey-man just because Nepa has taken light. Daddy is here, you are safe. Don't be afraid, answer the questions.

Deep Sight:In fact, i throw a challenge. I contend that there is NOTHING WHATSOEVER that has ever been as adamantly and repeatedly proven in our reality, as the law of cause and effect. NOTHING WHATSOEVER. NOT ONE SINGLE PHENOMENON AT ALL. Infact, EVERY PROVEN PHENOMENON is proven with reference to, and by the law of cause and effect. Nothing is proven without reference to that basic precept. NOTHING. I challenge Jayriginal to mention ONE such thing. Just ONE.

Answer please? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Sorry mate, but you have failed to prove your point. I havent asserted anything, Ive only questioned you. You are only playing to the gallery with this stage performance.

Prove your point with specifics, not generalities. Your challenge is of no use either way because it is your assertion that is in contention not mine. Sadly, you persist with the fallacies. You need to do better than this.

I have addressed all your other "questions" at one point or the other.
Now, whether you find them satisfactory or not is another issue. Your issue of fingerprints is a non starter. You should rest it. I have also addressed your question on planets and gravitational pull. In addition, I have clearly defined these two; the compositional fallacy and the argument from ignorance and I have shown you how they apply to the arguments you are making.

What more do you want ?

Classical and modern physics

The field of physics is commonly subdivided into two large categories: classical and modern physics. The dividing line between these two subdivisions can be drawn in the early 1900s. During that period, a number of revolutionary new concepts about the nature of matter were proposed. Included among these concepts were Einstein's theories of general and special relativity, Planck's concept of the quantum, Heisenberg's principle of indeterminacy, and the concept of the equivalence of matter and energy.

In general, classical physics can be said to deal with topics on the macroscopic scale, that is on a scale that can be studied with the largely unaided five human senses. Modern physics, in contrast, concerns the nature and behavior of particles and energy at the submicroscopic level. The term submicroscopic refers to objects—such as atoms and electrons—that are too small to be seen even with the very best microscope. One of the interesting discoveries made in the early 1900s was that the laws of classical physics generally do not hold true at the submicroscopic level.

Perhaps the most startling discovery made during the first two decades of the twentieth century concerned causality. Causality refers to the belief in cause-and-effect; that is, classical physics taught that if A occurs, B is certain to follow. For example, if you know the charge and mass of an electron, you can calculate its position in an atom. This kind of cause-and-effect relationship was long regarded as one of the major pillars of physics.

What physicists learned in the early twentieth century is that nature is not really that predictable. One could no longer be certain that A would always cause B. Instead, physicists began talking about probability, the likelihood that A would cause B. In drawing pictures of atoms, for example, physicists could no longer talk about the path that electrons do take in atoms. Instead, they began to talk about the paths that electrons probably take (with a 95 percent or 90 percent or 80 percent probability).


http://www.scienceclarified.com/Oi-Ph/Physics.html

The Beautiful Fairy Tale of Classical Physics

Today, quantum theory shrouds physics in a mystery scientists are working feverishly to understand. However, before folks began wondering about string theory and the like, physics had enjoyed a relatively calm notion of having figured most things out. In fact, there were six basic assumptions about classical physics that indicated that the greater mysteries of the universe had either been solved or would proceed to be solved presently. These six assumptions about classical physics were historically thought to be absolutely true (contrastingly, today all six assumptions of classical physics have been challenged or proven to be unsupported by recent data). So sit back, relax and learn what a rational and understandable world the six assumptions of classical physics painted once upon a time.

Assumption One of Classical Physics: A Contained System
The first assertion of classical physics was that the universe was like a machine. Following this metaphor, classical physics stated that all movement could be calculated, as it fit with the mechanical nature of the machine as a whole. This assumption is like saying that because a pocket watch follows absolute rules, all of its inner parts will as well.

Assumption Two of Classical Physics: Cause and Effect
Classical physics also insisted that, because of Newtonian ideas, all motion had a cause. Furthermore, because classical physics made the first assumption that the universe was like a machine, the second assumption of classical physics also dictated that all of these causes could be calculated. Very quickly we can see that classical physics and it's assumptions believed even the most complex behavior could be understood easily.

Assumption Three of Classical Physics: Determinism
Determinism is the belief that all action is the result of previous causes that can be measured and understood. In philosophy, determinism means that a person cannot practice free will; everyone is merely the sum of previous causes, and that someone's fate trails back to occurrences, all the way to his genetics and environment, which predicted his inevitable behavior. The view of determinism is much the same in classical physics, this third assumption merely asserting that if a body's state of motion was known at any juncture, that body's motion can be calculated for any other period of time, past or future. This makes sense in light of the former two assumptions. If classical physics declared that all movement's cause and effect could be measured, there was no reason to believe intervals between the initial cause and eventual effect could not also be known.

Assumption Four of Classical Physics: Maxwell's Electromagnetic Wave Theory
The fourth assumption of classical physics was that Maxwell's Electromagnetic Wave Theory completely explained the behaviors and properties of light and that there was nothing further to discover in that respect. While this must have been very flattering to Maxwell, this is nevertheless not an absolute assumption today.

Assumption Five of Classical Physics: Energy in Motion
The fifth assumption of classical physics was that types of energy were mutually exclusive and could either be a particle or a wave. This assumption fit very neatly into the predictable world of classical physics.

Assumption Six of Classical Physics: Degrees of Accuracy
Perhaps one of the most laughable assumptions of classical physics made perfect sense at the time. Not only did classical physics dictate that anything could be measured, the sixth and final assumption was that anything could be calculated to any degree of accuracy, were the equipment advanced enough. Recall that during the time of classical physics, physicists were learning about atomic systems. Obviously, classical physics did not yet know enough about atomic systems, as they too were thought to follow the sixth assumption describing absolute accuracy. If only!


WORKS CITED
McEvoy, J. P., Oscar Zarate, and Richard Appignanesi. Introducing Quantum Theory: [a Graphic Guide]. London: Icon, 2009. Print.

http://voices.yahoo.com/the-6-assumptions-classical-physics-10255985.html?cat=4

Max Planck’s Quantum Physics

Quantum physics arose out of classical physics in an effort to answer questions about atoms and subatomic particles that classical physics could not handle satisfactorily. That is, the laws of classical physics predicted that experiments with atoms and subatomic particles should produce certain results. However, the experiments turned out differently. Quantum physics is that body of knowledge that grew out of the best intellectual efforts to make sense of these strange results.

Quantum Mechanics, Theory, and Physics

Quantum mechanics is the branch of physics that studies the behavior of atoms and subatomic particles. It describes the nature of atoms and their building blocks, the subatomic particles—electrons, protons, and neutrons.

Quantum physics (or quantum mechanics) has been defined as the theory of the behavior of matter and energy, particularly at the level of atoms and subatomic particles, as the theory developed from Planck’s quantum principle and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, as a physical theory based on the idea of the quantum (a discrete amount) and quantum jumps (a discontinuous transition)—first discovered in connection with atomic objects, and as the framework of laws governing the universe whose unfamiliar features such as uncertainty, quantum fluctuations, and wave-particle duality become most apparent on the ultramicroscopic scales of atoms and subnuclear particles.

By the end of the 1920′s, physicists had developed a largely theoretical body of thought or quantum theory to explain a number of observed oddities in the behavior of subatomic particles. According to quantum theory, reality at the quantum level does not exist separately from or independently of human observation—reality comes into existence only when it is observed or measured by the human mind. The orthodox interpretation of quantum theory states that there is no deeper level of reality than that studied by quantum physics. However, many quantum physicists disagree concerning this ‘orthodox’ interpretation of quantum physics.

According to physicist David Bohm (1917-1992), quantum theory has four primary features:

The first feature is the indivisibility of the quantum action. In classical physics, when something moves from one state of being (position, etc.), there is a continuous series of intermediate states between the initial state and the final state. But when a quantum particle moves from an initial state to a final state, there are no intermediate states. The movement is said to be discontinuous. The quantum particle vanishes from one location and instantly reappears in another. This action is referred to as a quantum jump.

The second feature is the wave-particle duality properties of quantum particles. Subatomic particles, such as electrons, can show different properties (e.g., particle-like, wave-like, or something in between), depending on the environmental context within which they exist and are subject to observation. Under some conditions they behave like waves, while under other conditions they behave like particles. Yet, they are always both waves and particles. This paradox is the complementary principle mentioned above.

The third feature is that the laws of quantum mechanics are statistical and do not determine individual future events uniquely and precisely. The properties of matter are revealed in terms of statistical potentialities. That is, at the quantum level, every physical situation is characterized by a quantum wave function. This quantum wave function is not directly related to the actual properties of an individual object, event, or process. Instead, it is a sum of probability curves. Each curve gives the probability or likelihood that a particular object, event, or process will occur. Each of these potential situations are mutually incompatible; i.e., only one can manifest or be actualized. There is no way to determine which one will manifest; there are only probabilities associated with each possible outcome.

The fourth feature of quantum physics is what is referred to as non-causal correlations. Two particles, such as electrons, which were initially part of a quantum system, when separated, show a peculiar non-local relationship, which can best be described as a non-causal connection, no matter how far apart they are (as demonstrated in the experiment of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen). That is, when two or more quantum particles have been associated with each other and are subsequently separated by time and/or space, whatever happens to one of the quantum particles is instantaneously reflected in the other quantum particle. According to Einstein’s theories of relativity, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. However, no matter how distant in time/or space two or more correlated (related, associated) particles are, there exists some form of instantaneous information sharing among them. Because this sharing is instantaneous, it takes place faster than the speed of light. Physicists disagree as to how this information sharing occurs.

http://epages./2012/02/11/physics-classic-and-quantum/

Of course, with a wave of the hand, you will pronounce this to be "voodoo" .