Recent Comments

1. about 14 years ago on Non Sequitur

   “But are they well regulated?” Hopefully only as a militia: we don’t want to stop bear economy from running itself.

2. over 14 years ago on Non Sequitur

   Actually, Occam’s Razor states nothing about what should be correct: Occam’s Razor simply says do not add explanations without need! That is, ASSUME that the simplest answer (one explanation) is correct until you demostrate that you need 2+ explanations.

3. almost 15 years ago on Non Sequitur

   Faolain: The official excuse for not using women is that their hormone levels flux too much relative to men. This has since been shown to be incorrect in most cases, and an important parameter in the cases when it is. However, the tradition lives on because “that’s just the way it’s done.” Hopefully more women in research will cause that to change.

4. almost 15 years ago on Non Sequitur

   Just to follow up, the Europeans make as many medical breakthroughs as we do, and for less profit. As someone in a totally different field of science, the explanation is easy: we researchers do this for the sheer thrill of solving a puzzle.

   What happens AFTER the puzzle is solved is another issue. For me, it’s on to the next project, as there is no money involved. However, if profits are involved, then shareholders have to be pleased. After all, we wouldn’t want THEM to have to work, would we? (Actually, it probably would be pretty disastrous if they did, come to think on it….)

5. over 15 years ago on Non Sequitur

   heh, if there were a nonironic Darwin award, then I’d give it to the person who won the river bet: but only if he/she got the $5 from the deceased!

6. almost 16 years ago on Non Sequitur

   Actually, this is not inductive reasoning: that is (for example) noting that all crows are black and concluding that crows are black. Of course, that is the basis of hypothesis testing: if X then y; not y, not X. In reality, it always is probability as there are no universal “if X then y” statements, or at least none that anybody cares about any more!

7. almost 16 years ago on Non Sequitur

   Oh, and this is not what biologists do. We are strictly “if X then y” sorts. Creationism, astrology, mysticism, etc., all rely on this: they explain facts after the observation by shoe-horning as much as possible. And when the facts are too hard to shoe-horn, then it is just “well, the gods work in mysterious ways…”

   I’m trying to remember what sort of logical fallacy this is. It sort of is the fallacy of appealing to belief, isn’t it?