User talk:Markman

(Difference between revisions)

Welcome!

Hello, --Jpatt 10:00, 19 October 2011 (EDT), and welcome to Conservapedia!

We're glad you are here to edit. We ask that you read our Editor's Guide before you edit.

At the right are some useful links for you. You can include these links on your user page by putting "{{Useful links}}" on the page. Any questions--ask!

Thanks for reading, --Jpatt 10:00, 19 October 2011 (EDT)!

if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }

Congratulations, your account has been promoted such that you can now block other accounts!--Andy Schlafly 16:41, 7 November 2011 (EST)

Great block and reverts this morning.--Andy Schlafly 09:33, 8 November 2011 (EST)

I don't think that's a good example of a block, sorry, and changed it to 3 days. They were using the Talk pages. They were providing sources. I think this shows a need for warning, not permanent blocking. They shouldn't have re-added material removed by Aschlafly but I don't think that's cause for a permablock. Some of their edits show they believe in Christianity. --Jzyehoshua 20:04, 23 July 2012 (EDT)

I'd originally changed it to 10 minutes, because I'd just glanced at the Diff and not seen any blatant vandalism. But when I checked the page history, I realized he'd re-added material reverted by the site's founder, pretty serious, so that's why I changed it to 3 days. I've explained it to him at his talk page. I still think it was an honest mistake made by a newbie, not intentional vandalism. Intentional vandals wouldn't go to that much trouble with serious writing and attempted sources. I think he probably spent time writing it, saw it reverted, and thought he could re-add it and discuss it, not realizing who had removed it. I'd like to see him get another chance. --Jzyehoshua 20:33, 23 July 2012 (EDT)

I was wondering what AlanA was blocked for. According to Conservapedia's Guidelines, "Unlike Wikipedia, we do not block for ideological reasons. Warnings are appropriate, not for obscenity, vandalism or parody (Which are block-able offenses without warning.), but for silliness and other problems. In rare cases, our approach to repeated ideological conflict is to lock the page, and then allow the Administrator Group to make changes on a manual basis based upon submitted suggestions on the Talk page."

So if AlanA was blocked for an ideological comment, questioning whether Gallup results are critical of religion, then isn't that contrary to guidelines? And if we are allowed to block based on ideological reasons, shouldn't the guidelines be updated so people at least know what to expect? --Jzyehoshua 12:12, 24 July 2012 (EDT)

I just don't know if it sends that good a message to respond to such a comment by banning and preventing conversation. I disagree with his comment, but I think the right approach is to discuss it so long as he remains courteous and honest in the discusssion. --Jzyehoshua 12:14, 24 July 2012 (EDT) The atheistic Britons comment was vandalism I suppose though, so that might be worthy of a block. I hadn't noticed that one as much before. --Jzyehoshua 12:18, 24 July 2012 (EDT)

Okay, what is with some of these blocks? You just blocked some people on the main page who said some stuff about video games in disagreement with you, even when they were remaining courteous. What was with the block of GuitarSniper in particular? You said he was "trolling" for expressing disagreement about video games causing violence? Are we just blocking everybody who dares disagree with every single one of our most esoteric opinions now?[1] Just blocking everybody who dares make a single comment we disagree with? What's the point of Debate pages if people can't disagree reasonably? Why don't you just delete those and put up a "Dictatorship of Markman" flag on the site if you're going to make blocks like that? Man... This isn't compatible with the Guidelines at all. The site claims that "Unlike Wikipedia, we do not block for ideological reasons. Warnings are appropriate, not for obscenity, vandalism or parody (Which are block-able offenses without warning.), but for silliness and other problems. In rare cases, our approach to repeated ideological conflict is to lock the page, and then allow the Administrator Group to make changes on a manual basis based upon submitted suggestions on the Talk page."[2] Start treating these people fairly so I don't have to reverse all these silly blocks that are contary to Conservapedia's guidelines. It wastes my time and yours. --Joshua Zambrano 23:40, 24 July 2012 (EDT)

I am not saying it is but, like those of a number of long-serving editors here, this user name can be explained with about 5 seconds of thought. Croy is a surname. I also know at least one town in Britain. Ifor is a Welsh name - quite common, a variation of Ivor. Serge is a particularly common name. It's the anglisisation of Sergei, as in Prokofiev, Rachmaninov etc. I went to school with a Serge. Ban him if you like for username reasons, but I thought your comments were a little gratuitous. Just saying.... AlanE 20:23, 22 February 2013 (EST)

While I do not disagree with your recent blocks, I do feel that the the comments you put for the block reason are a little bit over the top, and do not reflect on Conservapedia's professional policies. It is perfectly fair to block a troll, but you don't need to reciprocate by making some more accusations, that have little to do with the user's actions. Thanks for reading,

brenden 21:10, 22 February 2013 (EST)

Bear in mind I was the one who started the baby-eating thing. I think he found it far more welcoming than the "FNQ Hello" (Dvergne will know what I mean.) There is a lack of basic courtesy on this site that one feels unless they are completely within the ideological circle - which you are of course.

What I said had to be said. It needs to be said every now and then because people come here, they do all the right things to get Andy's favour and are given power. They use it. Some of them abuse it. They know they have the boss's blessing. They don't know my history - usually because they haven't bothered to find out. To them I am just another troll, when really I am just letting off a bit of steam as a grumpy old man who likes taking the mickey occasionally . And I have always been a keen and somewhat amused observer of social interaction. And yes, it is trolling to an extent. So are Cons' constant hardly relevant incursions into talk pages. (And just to stir the possum (an Australianism) .... without the homosexual couple who lived in the next apartment from when I was 11 to 18 years of age I may not have been able to create the articles in Category:Sacred music for they instilled in me a love of church music that has lasted over 50 years. Musical vermin, they were.) Cheers - and sorry I misunderstood. AlanE 03:57, 23 February 2013 (EST)

What is the point of blocking a new user and telling them to recreate their account with a more appropriate username if you block them with autoblock enabled and account creation disabled ??? It seems a bit counter intuitive and unproductive to me. Dvergne 03:47, 24 February 2013 (EST)

Whoops, didn't notice I did that. Thanks, I'll avoid this mistake next time. - Markman 03:48, 24 February 2013 (EST) I suggest you be less vigorous with your blocking otherwise I may need to have a word with Andy, it seems you are starting to drive away genuine users as well as the parodists, spammers and trolls. Dvergne 09:12, 25 February 2013 (EST) Just to be sure here, could you put a diff of the offending edits that DonnyC made? brenden 23:23, 26 February 2013 (EST) I have gone through his contributions for the past week and there is nothing that is deserving of a block. --DamianJohn 01:41, 27 February 2013 (EST)

Blocking the User:GiseleRom because of Silly and/or foul username. Account may be recreated as a first name and last initial sounds quite ironic when the block isn't performed by User:MarkM but by User:Markman :-) --AugustO 14:40, 28 February 2013 (EST)

I haven't seen your input to this article on Talk:E=mc² yet - I'm interested in your thoughts! --AugustO 14:49, 28 February 2013 (EST)

If you don't know what you are doing, just don't do it! --AugustO 15:09, 28 February 2013 (EST) See my recent edit summary. - Markman 15:10, 28 February 2013 (EST) See Talk:E=mc² and my recent edit summary. --AugustO 15:11, 28 February 2013 (EST)

Hmmn - I suppose CP's policy on usernames may justify blocking him/her, but still, there remains the possibility the s/he was merely a fan of DW, and was unaware of our username policy (Usernames shall be a variation of your real name). brenden 14:27, 1 March 2013 (EST)

Great blocks, but the better block reason is "user name policy: please consider recreating ...." Thanks!--Andy Schlafly 08:57, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Given your personal feelings you should not be blocking DonnyC. In any case he was engaging playfully with a sysop who has not taken offence, and who is big enough and ugly enough to deal with it. Our role is to block obvious trolls and vandals, not editors we happen not to like. Leave that sort of blocking to the sysops, which you are not. Please try to get along with others, rather than picking fights all the time. Thanks. --DamianJohn 15:14, 3 March 2013 (EST)

I have seen your warning regarding my excessive talk posts. Note that 13 of the 20 that you mention represent four discussions. I was unaware that a three post dialog, say, resulted in a 30-post article quota, or that correcting a misspelling in a talk post added 10 more to deficit.

Another two of my talk posts were a suggestion to improve an article (which was met with a request from the original editor to make the change), plus a "done" response from me. If that exchange puts me in the hole for 20 more article updates, I can see this is a very potent rule.

I do admit that the "letter of the law" can be interpreted this way. I will be more careful in the future. As long as I'm here, I wonder if you saw my question to you regarding why you prefer "sheep" to "lamb" in Exodus? MelH 17:03, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Can I ask why you blocked me? All I did was follow the procedures to delete obvious spam. JohnQu 09:47, 5 March 2013 (EST)

How nice of you to go around ask for citations for all my contributions. A lot of the information in those articles was written through knowledge I have gained over the years so probably can't point to a specific location for the referencing. It would be much appreciated if you would help me find these references. Dvergne 03:24, 6 March 2013 (EST)

You fool! You're even doing it to items that are cited. Look at USS Sturgeon. But keep going - it's showing people just how useful I was to the "information" part of the "Encyclopedia. There are hundreds yet. (How many article have you created and on what variety of subjects?) AlanE 14:18, 6 March 2013 (EST)

So sorry but I find Markman "uncited" edits correct. You are encouraged to add sources for verifiability or ask for help.--Joaquín Martínez 19:17, 6 March 2013 (EST) Joachin, I hadn't realised how much you disliked me. I had gone out of my way to treat you with respect and to give you some grounding in the music I love. I had no idea you disrespected my knowledge. Thanks for supporting a person who is doing this for no other reason than malice towards me. AlanE 20:53, 6 March 2013 (EST) While Citation Needed tags are good, it really makes no sense that you are simply systematically going through AlanE's edits, and sticking spamming his perfectly fine pages with them. A quick Google search would verify the credence of his edits, and I see no motive behind this beside petty disagreements with AlanE. brenden 21:08, 6 March 2013 (EST)

Ya might wanna check out the edits by MattyD as BryanF was a sock of that particularly annoying user.

There are a lot of animal articles without citations, u might wanna look at them. 10:31, 8 March 2013 (EST)

And I expect those whining about citations had better be prepared to find and add them. "That's not my job" is an excuse I will never accept. Karajou 11:38, 8 March 2013 (EST)

Try this [3] template instead for short or stub articles. Karajou 17:41, 8 March 2013 (EST)

This is good, but the uncited template is still needed for articles lacking in citations. And in regards to your previous remarks, don't worry about it. As I've already said, tomorrow I'm going to start going through articles lacking in citations and work on fixing them. - Markman 17:43, 8 March 2013 (EST)

Leave mine to me and I will use the books I use to check my facts. I will do them category by category. But don't put that tag on any more of my edits. Seeing as I'm being hung out to dry here, give me at least that. Now excuse me for an hour or three - I'm laying bricks today, at least they are going to stay where I put them.AlanE 19:23, 8 March 2013 (EST)

I've drastically reduced his block period, as his edits to mainspace articles have been helpful, and his edits to talkpages have been rather productive, and insightful. brenden 23:31, 4 June 2013 (EDT)

And then you block him for 2 hours, on the grounds of "accusing you of blocking him out of vengeance". Please explain what this really means. Also, Rafael, 2 day block?? For mocking users (I presume User:C, as he is the primary editor at MPR)? User:C has demonstrated that he prefers to engage in such banter, and the rather gentle mocking from rafael (in comparison to user:C's downright belligerent words) was certainly tolerable by any standards. brenden 13:29, 6 June 2013 (EDT)

I have three issues with what you have said: 1. Before today, I have never heard of the internet joke "Ryan Cash." My account was made in June 2010 and I'm not even sure if that joke was around then, considering that you are the first person to ever bring that to my attention. If the name sounds similar, it is purely coincidence, let me explain. Ryan is my first name and cs is the initials of my double-barreled surname. H was added in when I made my very first internet account and ryancs was taken, with ryancsh being the closest option. Since then, it's just been habit to stick to it.

2. You accuse me of Parody yet there is no evidence on conservapedia to prove that I am guilty of being a parody. I have only spoke with my own opinion and the guild-lines clearly state that the parody must me on conservapedia. In fact, I direct you to the difference between conservapedia and Wikipedia page in which it clearly states that conservapedia does not ban users due to outside blogs or activities. Even though the link to an internet joke is incorrect, you are still going against the values of conservapedia by trying to discredit me with outside information. Also, I might add that if I was a parodist would I not have begun being a parody when I joined and not 2 years later?

3. You blocked me for the 90/10 rule. Firstly I would point out that the rule states "90% talk page edits and only 10% quality edits to Conservapedia articles" on the conservative commandments. My contribution as a whole as been 75%talk and 25% edits, (5 to 20) but that includes the 4 debate talks I did over a year ago. This year it has been 5-15 and in June it was 5-2 (or 5-4 if you count my user page as talk). Surely this would show that I was starting to reform my behavior when you blocked me. I trust that an administrator, who is obviously dedicated as he is fervent to expel any troublemakers, would not like to give the impression "it doesn't matter if you reform we will still ban you" as this goes against the whole idea of repentance and forgiveness. In fact, your block has meant that I am not able to make the planned edits to the Liberal Denial page as I was blocked until 11PM and then had to spend my time writing this to prove my innocence.

So please, in the future, could you just ask before you block or give a verbal warning so that the accused (me in this case) has time to explain. Justice, not vengeance, is truly conservative. Ryancsh 5 June 2013 20:34 GMT

There is no evidence of parody or intentional misinformation from user Ryancsh. Karajou 02:02, 6 June 2013 (EDT)

I like how you didn't even bother to read that userpage. *sarcastic slow clap* brenden 15:50, 6 June 2013 (EDT)

You do have to admit, some of it is quite witty :) -- Penny

View the original article here

Obama briefed on Boston investigation

President Obama was briefed Saturday on the nascent investigation into the motivations of the two brothers suspected of orchestrating the Boston Marathon bombings.

At a White House meeting of the president's National Security Council, the administration's top intelligence, law enforcement and counter-terrorism officials updated Obama on Friday night's capture of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the younger suspect, and the ongoing probe to discover what might have inspired the attacks. 

Among those briefing the president were National Security Advisor Tom Donilon, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, FBI Director Robert Mueller and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, the White House said. 

Vice President Biden joined the 90-minute meeting by teleconference, the administration added.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his brother, Tamerlan, were ethnic Chechens who immigrated to the United States years ago. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who was captured Friday night after a long manhunt, was reportedly made a naturalized citizen last September; Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who was killed Friday morning in a shootout with police, reportedly had a green card.

The brothers' long stay in the U.S., combined with the seeming absence of red flags that might have foreshadowed a terrorist conspiracy, has left law enforcers in and out of the administration scratching their heads in search of why the suspects might have bombed Boston.

Obama on Friday night vowed to get to the bottom of that enigma.

"Why did young men who grew up and studied here, as part of our communities and our country, resort to such violence? How did they plan and carry out these attacks, and did they receive any help?" Obama said. 

"The families of those killed so senselessly deserve answers.” 

View Comments

View the original article here

Statement by the President on the Re-election of President Giorgio Napolitano of Italy

Statement by the President on the Re-election of President Giorgio Napolitano of Italy | The White House Skip to main content | Skip to footer site map The White House. President Barack Obama Get Email UpdatesContact Us Go to homepage. The White House Blog Photos & Videos Photo Galleries Video Performances Live Streams Podcasts 2012: A Year in Photos

A unique view of 2012

Briefing Room Your Weekly Address Speeches & Remarks Press Briefings Statements & Releases White House Schedule Presidential Actions Executive Orders Presidential Memoranda Proclamations Legislation Pending Legislation Signed Legislation Vetoed Legislation Nominations & Appointments Disclosures Visitor Access Records Financial Disclosures 2012 Annual Report to Congress 2011 Annual Report to Congress 2010 Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff A Commitment to Transparency

Browse White House visitor logs

Issues Civil Rights It Gets Better Defense End of Iraq War Disabilities Economy Jobs Reform and Fiscal Responsibility Strengthening the Middle Class Support for Business Education Energy & Environment Ethics Foreign Policy Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Refinancing Rural Service Seniors & Social Security Snapshots Creating Jobs Health Care Small Business PreK-12 Education Rural Taxes Tax Receipt The Buffett Rule Technology Urban Policy Veterans Joining Forces Violence Prevention Women Now Is The Time

To do something about gun violence

Immigration Reform

Creating an Immigration System for the 21st Century

The Administration We the People

Create and Sign Petitions Now

President Barack Obama Vice President Joe Biden Being Biden Audio Series First Lady Michelle Obama Dr. Jill Biden The Cabinet White House Staff Chief of Staff Denis McDonough Deputy Chief of Staff Rob Nabors Deputy Chief of Staff Alyssa Mastromonaco Counselor to the President Peter Rouse Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett Executive Office of the President Other Advisory Boards About the White House White House On the Go

Download our mobile apps

Take A Virtual Tour

View the Residence, East Wing and West Wing

Inside the White House Interactive Tour West Wing Tour Video Series Décor and Art Holidays Presidents First Ladies The Oval Office The Vice President's Residence & Office Eisenhower Executive Office Building Camp David Air Force One White House Fellows President’s Commission About the Fellowship Current Class Staff Bios News and Newsletters White House Internships About Program Presidential Department Descriptions Selection Process Internship Timeline & FAQs Tours & Events 2013 Easter Egg Roll Kitchen Garden Tours Take a Virtual Tour of the White House Mobile Apps Our Government The Executive Branch The Legislative Branch The Judicial Branch The Constitution Federal Agencies & Commissions Elections & Voting State & Local Government Resources /* Maximize height of menu features. */if(typeof(jQuery)!='undefined')jQuery.each($('#topnav'),function(i,v){var o=$(v),oh=o.height(),sh=o.siblings().height();if(oh Home • Briefing Room • Statements & Releases   The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release April 20, 2013 Statement by the President on the Re-election of President Giorgio Napolitano of Italy

I congratulate President Giorgio Napolitano on his re-election as President of Italy. For seven years, President Napolitano has demonstrated extraordinary leadership in Italy, in Europe, and around the world. I admire his decision to once again serve the Italian people as President, and welcome the decision that the Italian parliament has made to come together to select him for continued service.

President Napolitano's steadfast commitment to the alliance between the United States and Italy is deep and abiding, and reflects the enduring bonds among our people. His continued stewardship of the transatlantic relationship will ensure that we move forward together in facing the challenges of our times.

 

Blog posts on this issue April 20, 2013 1:10 PM EDTWatch Live: 2013 White House Science Fair

President Obama hosts the 3rd Annual White House Science Fair and celebrate the student winners of a broad range of science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) competitions from across the country.

April 20, 2013 6:00 AM EDTWeekly Address: America Stands with the City of Boston

President Obama speaks to the American people about the act of terror at the Boston Marathon that wounded dozens and killed three innocent people on Monday, and says that through it all, Boston’s spirit remains undaunted and Americans have proven they refuse to be terrorized.

April 20, 2013 12:02 AM EDTPresident Obama: "We've Seen the Character of Our Country Once More"

President Obama commends the response from the state and local police and federal investigators after law enforcement makes an arrest in the Boston Marathon bombings.

view all related blog posts ul.related-content li.views-row img {float: left; padding: 5px 10px 0 0;}ul.related-content li.view-all {padding-bottom: 3em;} Stay ConnectedFacebookTwitterFlickrGoogle+YouTubeVimeoiTunesLinkedIn   Home The White House Blog Photos & Videos Photo Galleries Video Performances Live Streams Podcasts Briefing Room Your Weekly Address Speeches & Remarks Press Briefings Statements & Releases White House Schedule Presidential Actions Legislation Nominations & Appointments Disclosures Issues Civil Rights Defense Disabilities Economy Education Energy & Environment Ethics Foreign Policy Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Refinancing Rural Service Seniors & Social Security Snapshots Rural Taxes Technology Urban Policy Veterans Violence Prevention Women The Administration President Barack Obama Vice President Joe Biden First Lady Michelle Obama Dr. Jill Biden The Cabinet White House Staff Executive Office of the President Other Advisory Boards About the White House Inside the White House Presidents First Ladies The Oval Office The Vice President's Residence & Office Eisenhower Executive Office Building Camp David Air Force One White House Fellows White House Internships Tours & Events Mobile Apps Our Government The Executive Branch The Legislative Branch The Judicial Branch The Constitution Federal Agencies & Commissions Elections & Voting State & Local Government Resources En español Accessibility Copyright Information Privacy Policy Contact USA.gov Developers Apply for a Job

View the original article here

Logic

(Difference between revisions)[[Logic]] ([[Greek language|Greek]] ?????? I reckon, I count, from ????? a word) is a branch of [[philosophy]] that deals with and attempts to guide the faculty of human reason.'''Logic''' ([[Greek language|Greek]] ?????? I reckon, I count, from ????? a word) is a branch of [[philosophy]] that deals with and attempts to guide the faculty of human reason. It is often studied as part of [[mathematics]] or alongside of it.The most logical book ever written is the [[Bible]], but some people reject or avoid it because they dislike being told they are wrong.The most logical book ever written is the [[Bible]], but some people reject or avoid it because they dislike being told they are wrong.

Logic (Greek ?????? I reckon, I count, from ????? a word) is a branch of philosophy that deals with and attempts to guide the faculty of human reason. It is often studied as part of mathematics or alongside of it.

The most logical book ever written is the Bible, but some people reject or avoid it because they dislike being told they are wrong.

Aristotle was the first to formalize the practice of reasoning. In particular, Aristotle developed a formalization of the syllogism and the Square of Opposition. While Modus ponens and its complement Modus tollens were known to the Medievals, it is not clear when these central laws of deduction were first formalized.

The next easily-identifiable major development in logic comes from Boole in 1847 with the creation of Boolean algebra. In the 1870's, Peirce introduces a logic of quantifiers, followed by Gottlob Frege's 1879 Begriffsschrift, which contains the first complete formalization of the propositional calculus. Frege's work was developed in service of his logicist project, which was shown to be inconsistent by Bertrand Russell in 1903 with what is famously called Russell's paradox.

By the 1950's, with the work of many logicians including Hilbert, Emile Post, Alfred Tarski and Kurt Goedel, most of the major results in first-order logic had been proved, and in the 1960's Saul Kripke added a completeness proof for modal logic.

Most logical systems are bivalent; that is, they admit only two truth-values. However, there is a fair amount of work done on non-bivalent systems of logic, especially intuitionist logic and relevance logic. In intuitionist logic, "true" and "false" are replaced with "proven true", "proven contradictory", and "not proven". In relevance logic, "neither true nor false" and "both true and false" are added to the standard two truth values. There is some debate about the value of these systems in philosophical circles, and Timothy Williamson claims to have a proof that any non-bivalent logic can be converted into a bivalent logic.

Formal logic requires, since Frege, a distinction between the object language and the metalanguage. The metalanguage is ordinarily a natural language like English or German, while the object language is a symbolic language with a limited alphabet and syntax.

if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }

The art of rhetoric is sometimes called "informal logic", and the classic fallacies are often described as "logical fallacies", though, strictly speaking, most of them are simply emotionally effective ways to build an invalid argument. Generally speaking, "informal logic" consists of "common sense" and a collection of other rather loose rules that people employ while making most decisions and even in debate. It is unstructured, and depends largely on one's view of "the reasonable". The thresholds of what is "reasonable" and what is not, are inexact and subject to change with the receipt of sufficient contrary evidence--and again, what constitutes "sufficiency" in this context might vary from person to person.

Deductive logic is characterized by certainty: in a valid argument, when the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. The certainty, however, comes at a price. Take a classic argument of deductive logic:

Premises: All men are mortal, Socrates is a man. Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.

The conclusion is "contained" in the premises. In a sense the conclusion is "known" before it is elucidated. The conclusion, "Socrates is mortal" is also less informative than the premises which imply not just that Socrates is mortal but that a lot of other beings (anyone for whom the term "is a man" applies) are also mortal. As a result deductive logic is not thought to add to knowledge, merely to clarify it.

Inductive logic is ampliative, but is famously less certain. In a good inductive argument, even when the premises are true, it is still possible for the conclusion to be false. A classic example of an inductive argument is:

Premise: All the many swans observed have been white. Conclusion: All swans are white.

Before the discovery of Australia the premise was true someone following inductive logic would have reached the conclusion. Given the existence of black swans in Australia, however, that conclusion is false. David Hume's 18th-century critique of induction remains a very pressing problem for disciplines like science which are commonly held to rely on inductive reasoning.

Another example of faulty logic would be when it comes to atheism. Atheists typically use many logical fallacies in an effort to convert people to their religion.[Citation Needed]

Premise: There is no emperical evidence for something. Conclusion: The object does not exist.

This logical fallacy acts as if absence of evidence is evidence of absence. This can be proven to be a faulty supposition because before America was discovered by Europeans, one could say there are only four continents based upon the evidence. This would be treated as a fact despite it being proven false later on. Also, this premise ignores the fact that there are multiple types of knowledge. There is empirical knowledge and then there is knowledge one has through faith. An example would be the knowledge that a mother loves her son. This cannot be proven to be a lie, but people have faith that is it true.

Logic is a necessary discipline in philosophy, because it deals with how we study and interact with the world and with other people in it. Logic and mathematics are also closely connected, and much of mathematics can be reduced to first-order logic, though Goedel's Incompleteness theorem shows that not all of mathematics can be so reduced.

In computer science, logic dictates how a machine will follow a set of instructions, including how to test its "world," evaluate it, and act according to that evaluation. Every computer language includes its own version of the language of symbolic logic, except that instead of establishing propositions, a computer following a program is usually choosing between and among different commands to execute.

Logic is also used extensively in theology, and especially the study of the Bible, which, due to its divine inspiration, is very logical.[Citation Needed]

Logic, and especially formal logic, inform the discipline of critical thinking--which, by no coincidence, takes its name from the Greek word for a judge. Indeed, judges and juries in courts of law must apply logic, both formal and informal, to arrive at their decisions. Formal logic will usually serve to state what obedience to a given body of law requires; informal logic must usually serve a trier of fact charged with deciding whether a given person was in obedience or in violation. The latter principle holds primarily because plaintiff and defendant in a court of law quite often do not agree on matters of fact.

Aristotle, "Organon" Gottlob Frege, "Begriffsschrift" and "The Foundations of Arithmetic" Bertrand Russell and Albert N Whitehead, "Principia Mathematica" Bas van Fraassen and J C Beall, "Possibility and Paradox" Geoffrey Hunter, "Metalogic"

View the original article here

Schumer: Senate immigration bill would make country safer

The Gang of Eight member said their package would help prevent attacks on the homeland.

The Senate's immigration reform package would make the country safer from attacks on home soil, a leading author of the bill said this week.

With Americans still reeling in the aftermath of Monday's Boston Marathon bombings, some Capitol Hill lawmakers are warning that the tragedy should make Congress even more wary of attempts to overhaul the immigration system.

But Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), a member of the so-called "Gang of Eight" that negotiated the sweeping proposal, said Friday that their package would help prevent attacks on the homeland.

"Our bill, while certainly it gives a path to citizenship and legalizes people right away, we will know the identities of everybody. And that makes the country safer," Schumer said in an interview with Univision set to air Sunday. "So I think our bill would actually – it's too early to tie it to any specific incident – but overall, it'll make the country a lot safer."

Law enforcement officials say the chief suspects in the Boston bombings are ethnic Chechens who have been living in the United States for years. One suspect, 26-year-old Tamerlan Tsarnaev, was killed in a shootout with police in the early hours of Friday morning. His brother, 19-year-old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, was captured outside Boston Friday night after an intense manhunt that lasted nearly 24 hours and shut down much of Greater Boston.

Schumer and the other members of the Gang of Eight – four Democrats and four Republicans – unveiled a proposal this week to revamp the nation's immigration system after months of delicate, closed-door talks. The issue has divided Washington politicians for many years, but the senators are hoping their compromise package will be more successful by striking the right balance between strengthening border security, favored by conservative Republicans, and granting new immigrant protections, urged by liberal Democrats.

Still, in the first Senate hearing on the issue, conducted Friday in the Judiciary Committee, there were clear signs that the bill has a tough road ahead. And Sen. Charles Grassley (Iowa), senior Republican on the panel, wondered aloud if holes in the immigration system opened the door for the Boston bombers to pull off their attacks. 

"Given the events of this week, it’s important for us to understand the gaps and loopholes in our immigration system," Grassley said in his opening statement of a Judiciary hearing on reform. "While we don’t yet know the immigration status of the people who have terrorized the communities in Massachusetts, when we find out, it will help shed light on the weaknesses of our system.

"How can individuals evade authorities and plan such attacks on our soil?" Grassley asked. "How can we beef up security checks on people who wish to enter the U.S.?  How do we ensure that people who wish to do us harm are not eligible for benefits under the immigration laws, including this new bill before us?"

Schumer said he's confident there's enough support for immigration reform this year – including endorsements from the strange bedfellows of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO – that the Boston tragedy won't quash the effort. 

"So many groups are behind us. I don't think that this incident would derail the immigration bill," he told Univision.

View Comments

View the original article here

User:PennyS

(Difference between revisions)

My name is Penny Schling. My hometown is Buffalo, New York. I am conservative Republican and member of the Tea Party. I am Pro-Life, Pro-Guns and Anti-Obama.

View the original article here

Aerial images from Watertown standoff released

New aerial images from the Massachusetts State Police show the scene of Friday night’s standoff with Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in Watertown, Mass.

Source: Mass. State Police

Authorities say a Watertown homeowner noticed blood near a loose strap on a tarp covering a boat in his backyard and called police.

Thermal imaging showed that the suspect was still alive, but not moving. After a standoff with police, Tsarnaev was taken into custody with gunshot wounds to his neck and leg.

Mass. Gov. Deval Patrick told reporters on Saturday that Tsarnaev is in serious, but stable condition at a Boston hospital, but the suspect is unable to communicate.

Source: Mass. State Police

We "hope he survives, because we have a million questions,"  Patrick said.

The discovery in the Watertown backyard came shortly after authorities announced that a lockdown of the Greater Boston area had been lifted, admitting that a door-to-door search of Watertown had been fruitless.

The lockdown had been announced Friday morning after a bloody shootout with police that ranged from the campus of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Mass., to the streets of nearby Watertown.

Tsarnaev's older brother, Tamerlan, was fatally injured in the shootout. The two brothers are suspected of being behind the bombing that killed three people and wounded more than 170 on Monday.

View Comments

View the original article here