Planet Atheism » Arcanum http://planetatheism.com Fri, 30 Jul 2010 03:11:48 +0000 en hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 Argument vs Paliwanaghttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/A-deistic/~3/uRIRueBhJSg/argument-vs-paliwanag.html http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/A-deistic/~3/uRIRueBhJSg/argument-vs-paliwanag.html#comments Sat, 26 Sep 2009 20:05:00 +0000 Arcanum argument vs explanation". I love finding these searches because they permit a translation from English to the language of the searcher. The Google translator includes the original English. It's interesting how many technical words (e.g. argument, assertion, circularity, fallacies, philosophers) are unchanged, and how many Spanish-derived words (e.g. mundo, lugar, suportado) appear in Filipino. Google clearly goofs: "internal combustion engine" became "search engine combustion".


Argument vs Paliwanag

Ang argument na (hindi dapat malito sa sariling wika kataga para sa isang matulis-away o makipagtalo) ay isang assertion ibinibigay bilang katibayan na ang pagtatapos ng ilang ay totoo. In a cogent argument (many are not cogent), a set of premises (fact-based propositions or statements) are linked according to rules of logic in order to support a conclusion. Sa isang kapani-paniwala argument (marami ay hindi kapani-paniwala), isang set ng mga lugar (katunayan na nakabatay sa PANUKALA o mga pahayag) ay na-link ayon sa mga tuntunin ng lohika upang suportahan ang isang konklusyon.

Arguments fail for one or more of a variety of reasons: Argumento mabibigo para sa isa o higit pa sa isang iba't ibang mga dahilan:
a) unacceptable, inaccurate, or irrelevant premises
a) hindi katanggap-tanggap, hindi wasto, o mga kaugnay na lugar
b) faulty linkages ( fallacies of logic ) between premises and the conclusion(s), which fail by virtue of deviation from rules of logic
b) may mga kapintasan ugnayan (fallacies ng lohika) sa pagitan ng lugar at sa pagtatapos (s), na mabibigo dahil sa paglihis mula sa mga alituntunin ng lohika
c) unsupported or irrelevant conclusions, or correct conclusions that are not logically supported by the argument presented (ignoratio elenchi)
c) hindi suportadong o walang-kaugnayang mga pagpapalagay, o iwasto pagpapalagay na hindi logically suportado ng argument na iniharap (ignoratio elenchi)

An explanation is any statement that renders something comprehensible by describing the relevant structure, or operation, or circumstances. This post, for example, is an explanation and not an argument. Ang paliwanag ay anumang pahayag na nagpapakita ng isang bagay na maaaring maunawaan sa pamamagitan ng naglalarawan sa mga kaugnay na istruktura, o operasyon, o pangyayari. Post na ito, halimbawa, ay isang paliwanag at hindi ang isang argument.

Explanations could include an explication of the operation of the internal combustion engine, or the homicidal activities of Cho Seung-hui . Mga paliwanag ay maaaring magsama ng isang magbigay ng detalyadong paliwanag ng mga operasyon ng mga panloob na search engine combustion, o ang nakamamatay na gawain ng Cho Seung-hui. An explanation is different from an argument in structure, components, and intention. Ang paliwanag ay naiiba mula sa isang argument na sa istraktura, mga sangkap, at layunin. Whereas an argument can commit the fallacy of circularity , an explanation cannot. Sapagkat ang isang argument na maaaring gumawa ng mga kamalian ng circularity, paliwanag ng isang hindi. Explanations point to links between general laws and observed effects. Mga paliwanag point sa mga link sa pagitan ng mga pangkalahatang batas at sundin epekto. Ideally, explanations confer an understanding of causes, contexts, and consequences of processes, phenomena, states of affairs, objects, terminology, etc.

Explanations have been variously subdivided into Deductive-Nomological , Inductive-Statistical , Functional, Historical, Psychological, Reductive, Teleological , and Methodological. Sa isip, mga paliwanag makipanayam sa isang pag-unawa sa mga dahilan, konteksto, at kahihinatnan ng mga proseso, phenomena, estado ng mga pangyayari, bagay, terminolohiya, atbp mga paliwanag ay variously subdivided sa deduksyon-Nomological, pasaklaw-nang Estadiskita, sa pagganap, Historical, sikolohikal, Reductive, teleolohiyakal, at Methodological. Explanation is one of the three aims of scientific research (the others being exploration and description).

Paliwanag ay isa sa mga tatlong layunin ng pananaliksik pang-agham (ang iba na pagsaliksik at paglalarawan). Although scientific theories must logically connect empirical observation to explanation and prediction, scientific hypotheses, theories, and laws are not arguments per se . Kahit na pang-agham theories dapat logically kumonekta mula sa obserbasyon pagmamasid sa mga paliwanag at hula, pang-agham hypotheses, theories, at mga batas ay hindi argumento per se. Arguments concerning values and ex -scientific metaphysics fall within the realm of philosophy .

Argumento tungkol sa halaga at ex-agham metapisika mahulog sa loob ng lupain ng pilosopiya. The early philosophers concerned themselves with metaphysics. Ang maagang philosophers nag-aalala ang kanilang mga sarili sa metapisika. However, after scientific method was applied to examination of the physical (natural) world, scientific explanations rendered much of metaphysical speculation irrelevant and superfluous. Subalit, pagkatapos ng pang-agham na paraan ay ginagamit sa pagsusuri ng pisikal na (natural) mundo, pang-agham paliwanag nai-render ang dami ng metapisiko haka-haka at walang-kaugnayang mga kalabisan. So, philosophers ceased to speculate about metaphysical questions for which science had provided a highly acceptable explanation and the scope of metaphysics (ontology) shrank. Kaya, philosophers ceased upang magmuni-muni tungkol sa metapisiko katanungan para sa agham na kung saan ay nagkaroon ng isang mataas na katanggap-tanggap na paliwanag at ang nasasakupan ng metapisika (ontolohiya) shrank.

panlabas na link: paliwanag sa loob ng glosaryo: ignoratio elenchi: lander sa paghahanap '':


A-Deism describes a rational view based on all the evidence that points to the nonexistence of supernatural entities.
]]> argument vs explanation". I love finding these searches because they permit a translation from English to the language of the searcher. The Google translator includes the original English. It's interesting how many technical words (e.g. argument, assertion, circularity, fallacies, philosophers) are unchanged, and how many Spanish-derived words (e.g. mundo, lugar, suportado) appear in Filipino. Google clearly goofs: "internal combustion engine" became "search engine combustion".


Argument vs Paliwanag

Ang argument na (hindi dapat malito sa sariling wika kataga para sa isang matulis-away o makipagtalo) ay isang assertion ibinibigay bilang katibayan na ang pagtatapos ng ilang ay totoo. In a cogent argument (many are not cogent), a set of premises (fact-based propositions or statements) are linked according to rules of logic in order to support a conclusion. Sa isang kapani-paniwala argument (marami ay hindi kapani-paniwala), isang set ng mga lugar (katunayan na nakabatay sa PANUKALA o mga pahayag) ay na-link ayon sa mga tuntunin ng lohika upang suportahan ang isang konklusyon.

Arguments fail for one or more of a variety of reasons: Argumento mabibigo para sa isa o higit pa sa isang iba't ibang mga dahilan:
a) unacceptable, inaccurate, or irrelevant premises
a) hindi katanggap-tanggap, hindi wasto, o mga kaugnay na lugar
b) faulty linkages ( fallacies of logic ) between premises and the conclusion(s), which fail by virtue of deviation from rules of logic
b) may mga kapintasan ugnayan (fallacies ng lohika) sa pagitan ng lugar at sa pagtatapos (s), na mabibigo dahil sa paglihis mula sa mga alituntunin ng lohika
c) unsupported or irrelevant conclusions, or correct conclusions that are not logically supported by the argument presented (ignoratio elenchi)
c) hindi suportadong o walang-kaugnayang mga pagpapalagay, o iwasto pagpapalagay na hindi logically suportado ng argument na iniharap (ignoratio elenchi)

An explanation is any statement that renders something comprehensible by describing the relevant structure, or operation, or circumstances. This post, for example, is an explanation and not an argument. Ang paliwanag ay anumang pahayag na nagpapakita ng isang bagay na maaaring maunawaan sa pamamagitan ng naglalarawan sa mga kaugnay na istruktura, o operasyon, o pangyayari. Post na ito, halimbawa, ay isang paliwanag at hindi ang isang argument.

Explanations could include an explication of the operation of the internal combustion engine, or the homicidal activities of Cho Seung-hui . Mga paliwanag ay maaaring magsama ng isang magbigay ng detalyadong paliwanag ng mga operasyon ng mga panloob na search engine combustion, o ang nakamamatay na gawain ng Cho Seung-hui. An explanation is different from an argument in structure, components, and intention. Ang paliwanag ay naiiba mula sa isang argument na sa istraktura, mga sangkap, at layunin. Whereas an argument can commit the fallacy of circularity , an explanation cannot. Sapagkat ang isang argument na maaaring gumawa ng mga kamalian ng circularity, paliwanag ng isang hindi. Explanations point to links between general laws and observed effects. Mga paliwanag point sa mga link sa pagitan ng mga pangkalahatang batas at sundin epekto. Ideally, explanations confer an understanding of causes, contexts, and consequences of processes, phenomena, states of affairs, objects, terminology, etc.

Explanations have been variously subdivided into Deductive-Nomological , Inductive-Statistical , Functional, Historical, Psychological, Reductive, Teleological , and Methodological. Sa isip, mga paliwanag makipanayam sa isang pag-unawa sa mga dahilan, konteksto, at kahihinatnan ng mga proseso, phenomena, estado ng mga pangyayari, bagay, terminolohiya, atbp mga paliwanag ay variously subdivided sa deduksyon-Nomological, pasaklaw-nang Estadiskita, sa pagganap, Historical, sikolohikal, Reductive, teleolohiyakal, at Methodological. Explanation is one of the three aims of scientific research (the others being exploration and description).

Paliwanag ay isa sa mga tatlong layunin ng pananaliksik pang-agham (ang iba na pagsaliksik at paglalarawan). Although scientific theories must logically connect empirical observation to explanation and prediction, scientific hypotheses, theories, and laws are not arguments per se . Kahit na pang-agham theories dapat logically kumonekta mula sa obserbasyon pagmamasid sa mga paliwanag at hula, pang-agham hypotheses, theories, at mga batas ay hindi argumento per se. Arguments concerning values and ex -scientific metaphysics fall within the realm of philosophy .

Argumento tungkol sa halaga at ex-agham metapisika mahulog sa loob ng lupain ng pilosopiya. The early philosophers concerned themselves with metaphysics. Ang maagang philosophers nag-aalala ang kanilang mga sarili sa metapisika. However, after scientific method was applied to examination of the physical (natural) world, scientific explanations rendered much of metaphysical speculation irrelevant and superfluous. Subalit, pagkatapos ng pang-agham na paraan ay ginagamit sa pagsusuri ng pisikal na (natural) mundo, pang-agham paliwanag nai-render ang dami ng metapisiko haka-haka at walang-kaugnayang mga kalabisan. So, philosophers ceased to speculate about metaphysical questions for which science had provided a highly acceptable explanation and the scope of metaphysics (ontology) shrank. Kaya, philosophers ceased upang magmuni-muni tungkol sa metapisiko katanungan para sa agham na kung saan ay nagkaroon ng isang mataas na katanggap-tanggap na paliwanag at ang nasasakupan ng metapisika (ontolohiya) shrank.

panlabas na link: paliwanag sa loob ng glosaryo: ignoratio elenchi: lander sa paghahanap '':


A-Deism describes a rational view based on all the evidence that points to the nonexistence of supernatural entities.
]]> http://planetatheism.com/2009/09/26/argument-vs-paliwanag/feed/ 0 Argumentum ad numerumhttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/A-deistic/~3/WV13ksvN1PA/argumentum-ad-numerum.html http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/A-deistic/~3/WV13ksvN1PA/argumentum-ad-numerum.html#comments Fri, 25 Sep 2009 20:25:00 +0000 Arcanum
Apelando a la Galería, apelando a los números

Numeram Argumentum y argumentum ad populam y están estrechamente relacionados con las falacias de la lógica. Argumentos numeram falaz ad tomar la posición de que la veracidad de un argumento puede ser determinada por el número de personas que apoyan o creen que la proposición. Argumentos ad populam falaz intento de ganar la aceptación de un argumento por hacer un llamamiento emocional a un público lo más amplio posible.

Giorgio Dubaya Borgia y su administración utiliza los recursos hasta la saciedad emocional (miedo al terrorismo, Saddam Hussein ha asesinado a civiles iraquíes) para tratar de justificar una invasión de mérito muy dudoso. La mayoría de la gente no es tan tonto como para seguir siendo engañados para siempre, y los índices de aprobación Borgia han caído en picado.

Sin embargo, los políticos tienen éxito porque un gran número de personas que son engañados por las apelaciones a la emoción de propaganda, la realización de sus errores demasiado tarde. (Este es el principal problema con las democracias - la población es demasiado fácil engañar a votar por candidatos que luego no resultan, como lo hizo Bush, no tienen absolutamente ningún mérito.) Como resultado de la credulidad de USians que votaron por Bush, Al Qaeda ahora está funcionando en Irak cuando no operan bajo Hussein. Miles de soldados y civiles han sido innecesariamente matado o mutilado, y el Iraq se enfrenta a años de guerra civil antes de otro dictador hombre fuerte se hace cargo. La ventaja sólo de la estupidez de todo esto es que el valor de las acciones de Halliburton probablemente ha aumentado, y que no es un revés, salvo para los estadounidenses ávidos.

Dogmáticos religiosos sostienen que debido a que la mayoría de personas en los EE.UU. creen que Dios era su creador personal, entonces Dios debe existir y debe ser su creador. Esto, por supuesto, sólo demuestra que la mayoría de la gente ha dicho, desde una edad temprana, que hay un Dios que es su creador y han creído el cuento de la falta de pruebas de confirmación. A diferencia del caso de la lamentable historial de Bush, sólo la muerte podía confirmar ni negar la existencia de este creador supuesto, y los muertos no pueden informar a los aún vivos que fueron engañados ellos. Si el muerto pudiera hablar, estoy bastante seguro de que la tasa de aprobación de Dios se desplomaría casi a cero.

Falaz numeram ad argumentam o populam ad argumentam es particularmente dañino en manos de los políticos deshonestos, pero también es un problema general entre los que se niegan a creer en la validez, basada en el conocimiento empírico de las autoridades de creíbles.

Debido a que es sencillo y económico, ya formarse y mantener una opinión, no importa cuán mal informadas o ilógico que la opinión, las personas con prácticamente ningún conocimiento de un campo dogmáticamente que insistir en nociones ridículas que van en contra de la sabiduría recibidas de aquellos que son autoridades en basado en los hechos de su campo.

Así, las personas que no saben nada de la meteorología o atmosféricos decidirá de forma incorrecta que el calentamiento global es un mito, simplemente porque no quieren creer que debe modificar su comportamiento. Las personas que saben nada de la medicina, las ciencias biomédicas, la epidemiología o erróneamente decidir, por ejemplo, que fumar no es perjudicial, o que la vacunación de las causas del autismo.

Estos errores sólo daría lugar a la celebración de las opiniones infundadas por peope no suficientemente informados como para albergar cualquier opinión, sino porque los políticos de complacer a la opinión pública, la ignorancia del público se tradujo en acciones políticas perjudiciales o la inacción.
A-Deism describes a rational view based on all the evidence that points to the nonexistence of supernatural entities.
]]>
Apelando a la Galería, apelando a los números

Numeram Argumentum y argumentum ad populam y están estrechamente relacionados con las falacias de la lógica. Argumentos numeram falaz ad tomar la posición de que la veracidad de un argumento puede ser determinada por el número de personas que apoyan o creen que la proposición. Argumentos ad populam falaz intento de ganar la aceptación de un argumento por hacer un llamamiento emocional a un público lo más amplio posible.

Giorgio Dubaya Borgia y su administración utiliza los recursos hasta la saciedad emocional (miedo al terrorismo, Saddam Hussein ha asesinado a civiles iraquíes) para tratar de justificar una invasión de mérito muy dudoso. La mayoría de la gente no es tan tonto como para seguir siendo engañados para siempre, y los índices de aprobación Borgia han caído en picado.

Sin embargo, los políticos tienen éxito porque un gran número de personas que son engañados por las apelaciones a la emoción de propaganda, la realización de sus errores demasiado tarde. (Este es el principal problema con las democracias - la población es demasiado fácil engañar a votar por candidatos que luego no resultan, como lo hizo Bush, no tienen absolutamente ningún mérito.) Como resultado de la credulidad de USians que votaron por Bush, Al Qaeda ahora está funcionando en Irak cuando no operan bajo Hussein. Miles de soldados y civiles han sido innecesariamente matado o mutilado, y el Iraq se enfrenta a años de guerra civil antes de otro dictador hombre fuerte se hace cargo. La ventaja sólo de la estupidez de todo esto es que el valor de las acciones de Halliburton probablemente ha aumentado, y que no es un revés, salvo para los estadounidenses ávidos.

Dogmáticos religiosos sostienen que debido a que la mayoría de personas en los EE.UU. creen que Dios era su creador personal, entonces Dios debe existir y debe ser su creador. Esto, por supuesto, sólo demuestra que la mayoría de la gente ha dicho, desde una edad temprana, que hay un Dios que es su creador y han creído el cuento de la falta de pruebas de confirmación. A diferencia del caso de la lamentable historial de Bush, sólo la muerte podía confirmar ni negar la existencia de este creador supuesto, y los muertos no pueden informar a los aún vivos que fueron engañados ellos. Si el muerto pudiera hablar, estoy bastante seguro de que la tasa de aprobación de Dios se desplomaría casi a cero.

Falaz numeram ad argumentam o populam ad argumentam es particularmente dañino en manos de los políticos deshonestos, pero también es un problema general entre los que se niegan a creer en la validez, basada en el conocimiento empírico de las autoridades de creíbles.

Debido a que es sencillo y económico, ya formarse y mantener una opinión, no importa cuán mal informadas o ilógico que la opinión, las personas con prácticamente ningún conocimiento de un campo dogmáticamente que insistir en nociones ridículas que van en contra de la sabiduría recibidas de aquellos que son autoridades en basado en los hechos de su campo.

Así, las personas que no saben nada de la meteorología o atmosféricos decidirá de forma incorrecta que el calentamiento global es un mito, simplemente porque no quieren creer que debe modificar su comportamiento. Las personas que saben nada de la medicina, las ciencias biomédicas, la epidemiología o erróneamente decidir, por ejemplo, que fumar no es perjudicial, o que la vacunación de las causas del autismo.

Estos errores sólo daría lugar a la celebración de las opiniones infundadas por peope no suficientemente informados como para albergar cualquier opinión, sino porque los políticos de complacer a la opinión pública, la ignorancia del público se tradujo en acciones políticas perjudiciales o la inacción.
A-Deism describes a rational view based on all the evidence that points to the nonexistence of supernatural entities.
]]> http://planetatheism.com/2009/09/25/argumentum-ad-numerum/feed/ 0 Pseudoscience Chicaneryhttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/A-deistic/~3/hsth8Fhs59g/pseudoscience-chicanery.html http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/A-deistic/~3/hsth8Fhs59g/pseudoscience-chicanery.html#comments Wed, 09 Sep 2009 09:35:00 +0000 Arcanum The Fiction Lie-See-Um or AiG's Creationist Museum presents falsehoods about natural history in order to promote ignorance of science in the US.Pseudoscience masquerades as science, usually to promote some commercial scam or to promote religious beliefs for which there is not, nor ever will be, supportive evidence.

The subject matter of pseudoscientific claims ranges from astrology and the occult to anti-science, religiously motivated falsehoods.

By my definition, to lay claim to being legitimately within the sphere of scientific knowledge, the claim must:
A) For physical evidence that is not subject to experimental verification: exist as tangible evidence that is uncovered under controlled conditions and is interpreted in accordance with current knowledge – for example, a paleontological fossil, an anthropological artefact, an archeological find. That same fossil, artefact, or ruin cannot be considered to fall within the realm of science when it has been unearthed without any attention to its context, or experimental verification of its associations and age.

B) For experimentally generated empirical data: the scientific method can be applied to physical data that is experimentally testable, repeatable, and, ideally, falsifiable. The experimental data must be logically interpreted in accordance with current knowledge.

Talking or writing about science is not science. Criticizing or critiquing science is not science. Elaborating mumbo-jumbo about supposed medical treatments without clinical testing is not science. Concocting falsehoods designed to protect unjustified belief in disproved Special Creation is definitely not science.

In order to ignorantly support illogical, indoctrinated religious mythology, creationists deny scientific knowledge, attack a straw man version of science, and falsify science as lie-oramas in the Fiction Lie-See-Um, or tout Misleading Pseudoscience for Dummies on junk tanks. " Creationism has been discredited, however, by indisputable physical evidence – carbon dating, for example."[SW]



External : Science Week editorials : Creationism vs. Sanity : SCIENCE POLICY: ON THE TEACHING OF PSEUDOSCIENCE :
A-Deism describes a rational view based on all the evidence that points to the nonexistence of supernatural entities.
]]> The Fiction Lie-See-Um or AiG's Creationist Museum presents falsehoods about natural history in order to promote ignorance of science in the US.Pseudoscience masquerades as science, usually to promote some commercial scam or to promote religious beliefs for which there is not, nor ever will be, supportive evidence.

The subject matter of pseudoscientific claims ranges from astrology and the occult to anti-science, religiously motivated falsehoods.

By my definition, to lay claim to being legitimately within the sphere of scientific knowledge, the claim must:
A) For physical evidence that is not subject to experimental verification: exist as tangible evidence that is uncovered under controlled conditions and is interpreted in accordance with current knowledge – for example, a paleontological fossil, an anthropological artefact, an archeological find. That same fossil, artefact, or ruin cannot be considered to fall within the realm of science when it has been unearthed without any attention to its context, or experimental verification of its associations and age.

B) For experimentally generated empirical data: the scientific method can be applied to physical data that is experimentally testable, repeatable, and, ideally, falsifiable. The experimental data must be logically interpreted in accordance with current knowledge.

Talking or writing about science is not science. Criticizing or critiquing science is not science. Elaborating mumbo-jumbo about supposed medical treatments without clinical testing is not science. Concocting falsehoods designed to protect unjustified belief in disproved Special Creation is definitely not science.

In order to ignorantly support illogical, indoctrinated religious mythology, creationists deny scientific knowledge, attack a straw man version of science, and falsify science as lie-oramas in the Fiction Lie-See-Um, or tout Misleading Pseudoscience for Dummies on junk tanks. " Creationism has been discredited, however, by indisputable physical evidence – carbon dating, for example."[SW]



External : Science Week editorials : Creationism vs. Sanity : SCIENCE POLICY: ON THE TEACHING OF PSEUDOSCIENCE :
A-Deism describes a rational view based on all the evidence that points to the nonexistence of supernatural entities.
]]> http://planetatheism.com/2009/09/09/pseudoscience-chicanery/feed/ 0