Originally posted by KneverKnight
Wrong.
You can duck and weave all you want, the point remains: we can indeed draw valid conclusions from events in the past.

Except that the conclusion would be a deductive fallacy - i.e. the conclusion would be invalid.

Originally posted by Coletti
Except that the conclusion would be a deductive fallacy - i.e. the conclusion would be invalid.

You can't tell that the grass was shorter yesterday than today if you didn't cut it today?
Wow.

Originally posted by Coletti
Except that the conclusion would be a deductive fallacy - i.e. the conclusion would be invalid.

I don't think it would be a deductive fallacy; it just isn't a deductive conclusion. It's an inductive (abductive?) conclusion.

Originally posted by KneverKnight
OK, I'll try again one more time.
Car A is going East at 60 kph. Car B is going West at 60 kph. (Cruise control)

Mr. Smith looks out his window when the cars are travelling towards each other separated by 100 meters and calculates they will meet in the middle. You don't seem to have a problem with accepting this as valid.

Mr. Jones looks out hi ...[text shortened]... et[/i] in the middle. This is just as valid as Mr. Smith's calculation.

I can do no more ...

Yes, you can respond to my post that already covered the two
different car directions, there were points raised you are not
addressing, here, again.
Kelly

Originally posted by chinking58
I take the point of the article to demonstrate that the regularly made assumptions of your typical uniformitarian scientists are not reliable.

That's all.

How about finding out what scientists actually do before you fight the strawman your garbage site raises

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yes, you can respond to my post that already covered the two
different car directions, there were points raised you are not
addressing, here, again.
Kelly

You didn't add anything relevant.
Cars moving towards or going away is the same.
One car going east, the other west before they meet and after, the only change to an observer is the vectors appeared to converge before and diverge after.

Why is Mr. Jones wrong to calculate both cars have met in the middle?

Originally posted by KneverKnight
You didn't add anything relevant.
Cars moving towards or going away is the same.
One car going east, the other west before they meet and after, the only change to an observer is the vectors appeared to converge before and diverge after.

Why is Mr. Jones wrong to calculate both cars have met in the middle?

Fine, nothing I added was relevant in your opinion.
We can call this discussion over.
Kelly

Originally posted by vistesd
I don't think it would be a deductive fallacy; it just isn't a deductive conclusion. It's an inductive (abductive?) conclusion.

Even if it was an inductive conclusion - it would still be deductively invalid.

Originally posted by KneverKnight
You can't tell that the grass was shorter yesterday than today if you didn't cut it today?
Wow.

What??? Was that an example of reasoning?

Originally posted by Coletti
Even if it was an inductive conclusion - it would still be deductively invalid.

Of course it would; but it wouldn't be a "deductive fallacy" unless one tried to assert that it was deductive to begin with. And it's only deductively invalid, not invalid per se. And, of course, an inference can be deductively valid and still be false, if the premises are false.

Originally posted by vistesd
Irrelevant aside: What was Sir John Hick's degree? (Yeah, I know, that was a long time ago....)

Mathematics as far as I can tell. This makes a great deal of sense of course given the deep rooted relationship between economics and mathematics. Naturally, Hicks devoted a great deal of his career to the study of economics and mathematics.

I know you dubbed your question an irrelevant aside, but, given the availability of an easy answer through google, I cannot help thinking this is a mild reproach of my criticism of the King of Chin's authority as a geologist. If so, I would remind you, as I did his royal highness that as of yet he has only offered to me his standing as a geologist to support his claim of wide-spread evidence for a global flood 6000 years ago. It seems that he and I have settled this issue now and that he will proceed by offering his first piece of evidence for a worldwide flood shortly.

Originally posted by Coletti
What??? Was that an example of reasoning?

So, you need to think real hard to call yesterday's grass shorter?
Yes or no; is today's grass longer than yesterday's?
Conversely, was yesterday's grass shorter than today's?

Originally posted by KneverKnight
So, you need to think real hard to call yesterday's grass shorter?
Yes or no; is today's grass longer than yesterday's?
Conversely, was yesterday's grass shorter than today's?

Coletti only calls into question the natural laws of the universe when a reliance upon them undermines the credibility of his claim. Like KellyJay, he assumes uniformitarianism nearly every time he makes a makes a decision in which the state of the natural world is important.

Originally posted by telerion
Mathematics as far as I can tell. This makes a great deal of sense of course given the deep rooted relationship between economics and mathematics. Naturally, Hicks devoted a great deal of his career to the study of economics and mathematics.

I know you dubbed your question an irrelevant aside, but, given the availability of an easy answer through goo ...[text shortened]... and that he will proceed by offering his first piece of evidence for a worldwide flood shortly.

I know you dubbed your question an irrelevant aside, but, given the availability of an easy answer through google, I cannot help thinking this is a mild reproach of my criticism of the King of Chin's authority as a geologist.

Not really. It might have been a (very) mild reproach with regard to "credentialism." Credentials can be important when one is claiming some disciplinary authority. I called myself an economist for a time based on an M.A. (a stronger than average M.A.), but quit when I was no longer working as one, and had forgotten most of what I'd learned. I knew a research chemist who was regarded by Ph.D. chemists as the "real deal," and he had only a high school education--but he was a genius. I agree with you in general; just wanted to point out there are exceptions. When one claims the authority of credentials, they are certainly open to question.

If I was off-base, I apologize. 🙂

Originally posted by vistesd
Of course it would; but it wouldn't be a "deductive fallacy" unless one tried to assert that it was deductive to begin with. And it's only deductively invalid, not invalid per se. And, of course, an inference can be deductively valid and still be false, if the premises are false.

A conclusion can be deductively invalid regardless to someone asserting it is a deductive conclusion. Either the conclusion is invalid deductively or it is not.

Any valid conclusion can be false if the premises are false. But if the argument is invalid - the truth of the conclusion is unknowable. The only knowable true conclusion is one that follows validly from true premises.