OlivierK wrote:Weird, it didn't come up when I did a search. Looks pretty Poe-like, all the same.

Edit: Yup: https://facebook.com/groups/656283361652573?view=permalink&id=671437046803871

"deductive" and "inductive" refer to the form or type of argument, not the certainty of each premise in the argument. The article you link says that, "A deductive argument is an argument that is intended by the arguer to be deductively valid, that is, to provide a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion provided that the argument’s premises are true." But is there a special way to demonstrate the truth of a premise in a deductive argument as opposed to a premise in an inductive argument? I'm not aware of any difference. Can you find anywhere that says each premise of a deductive argument must be certainly true? I mean, if that were the case, I'd like you to produce such an argument, because I don't think there would be very many!

Svartalf wrote:I don't care if it's satire, it's shitty, and that guy needs be slapped with a rotten flounder.

One of Sunni Islam's most prestigious institutions is to discipline a cleric after he issued a decree allowing women to breastfeed their male colleagues.
Dr Izzat Atiya of Egypt's al-Azhar University said it offered a way around segregation of the sexes at work.

His fatwa stated the act would make the man symbolically related to the woman and preclude any sexual relations.

The president of al-Azhar denounced the fatwa, which Dr Atiya has since retracted, as defamatory to Islam.

According to Islamic tradition, or Hadith, breast-feeding establishes a degree of maternal relation, even if a woman nurses a child who is not biologically hers.

'Family bond'

In his fatwa, Dr Atiya, the head of al-Azhar's Department of Hadith, said such teachings could equally apply to adults.

He said that if a woman fed a male colleague "directly from her breast" at least five times they would establish a family bond and thus be allowed to be alone together at work.

"Breast feeding an adult puts an end to the problem of the private meeting, and does not ban marriage," he ruled.

"A woman at work can take off the veil or reveal her hair in front of someone whom she breastfed."

Two early conclusions that can be drawn from this understanding: 1. such a first cause must constitute a supremely simple ground of being, meaning it will by extension explain everything else that are downstream to its effects, so therefore every element that results from it must be part of the expression of any explanation. 2. Therefore we are looking at a *teleological* explanation - it is referencing the sum of all contingent expressions of its consequences. This would be expressed by temporal beings as hopes for our temporal future, literally "purpose." The first cause must also be the final purpose and all intervening events are necessary parts of its perfectly circular and complete self-explanation.I draw conclusions when there are no other possible options, and not before.

If you can name no possible options to produce different conclusions, then you can prove me wrong about that. So far there is no ignorance involved here. Logic makes it possible to conclude what's possible and what's not, and then use that to decide what's necessary. It's empirically grounded as much as any other field of knowledge because every other known fact must agree with it. One counter example will topple it.

Calilasseia wrote:Oh lovely, more fucking lying sack of shit creationists and their bullshit.

Hopefully they're all anti-vax nutters as well, so we can let Covid-19 deliver the goods ...