Re: problems with counterfactual reasoning
From: Mitch Harris (harrisq_at_tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de)
Date: 08/04/04
- Next message: Mitch Harris: "Re: Foundation for a Formal Refutation of the Original Halting Problem?"
- Previous message: Owen Jacobson: "Re: Foundation for a Formal Refutation of the Original Halting Problem?"
- In reply to: Daryl McCullough: "Re: What is the Result from Invoking this Halt Function?"
- Next in thread: Bill Taylor: "Re: problems with counterfactual reasoning"
- Reply: Bill Taylor: "Re: problems with counterfactual reasoning"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 09:18:13 +0200
Daryl McCullough wrote:
>
> Some people have a real problem with conditional reasoning. Once
> they start reasoning under a counterfactual assumption, they toss
> out everything they know.
How do you get someone to accept such reasoning? Is it just
practice?
I think parr has the right question with -1*-1 = -1. It's
totally counterintuitive (for some reasonable concept of
intuition). Even knowing and using the rule, an unwanted
conclusion is still easy to deny.
-- Mitch Harris (remove q to reply)
- Next message: Mitch Harris: "Re: Foundation for a Formal Refutation of the Original Halting Problem?"
- Previous message: Owen Jacobson: "Re: Foundation for a Formal Refutation of the Original Halting Problem?"
- In reply to: Daryl McCullough: "Re: What is the Result from Invoking this Halt Function?"
- Next in thread: Bill Taylor: "Re: problems with counterfactual reasoning"
- Reply: Bill Taylor: "Re: problems with counterfactual reasoning"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]