| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Fwd: RE: [distributism] The Rabbit | | Date: | Thursday, April 21, 2005 13:32:29 (+0100) | | From: | Timothy Carpenter <timbeau_hk @........uk>
|
| In reply to: | Message 1008 (written by Vic Bridger) |
Dear Vic,
What purpose is all this, Vic?
And I quote
Vic Bridger: "The test of any theorem including the A+B is whether or
not it reflects the facts."
Now you talk of reflecting facts as if I invented such a term and that the
term deserves a (rather too frequent) sneer from you.
One can say that the sun goes around the earth by observing, especially if
your measurements are not highly sophisticated and exclude other behaviours
or include behaviours that are deemed important but are not. Many truths
have been exploded because the facts have been shown to be in error, misread
or discovered to be irrelevant or that knowledge has expanded. All swans are
white, yes? No. We have black swans, but many have not seen them yet.
You also react haughtily in the second part when in fact the confusion is
due mostly to your snipping. Further, it does not tackle the point that Bill
has said such things in as many words before - to me for one. Is the
position correct (i.e. Misdirecting entrepreneurs) or is it, as you so
delicately said 'utter tripe' and that, if so, 'reductio ad absurdum'
applies to Bill also?
Tim
On 21/4/05 7:52 am, "Vic Bridger" <socred@ecn.net.au> wrote:
> 1. A Theorem is a statement of fact which is not self-evident, as is an
> axiom, but which can be demonstrated to be true.
>
> A theorem does not "reflect" the facts. It is a fact and a fact is the
> truth. As such it can be demonstrated to to be true and it is not possible
> for it to be incorrect unless it cannot be demonstrated to be true.
>
> Unlike in logic where premises may be correct but the logical formation
> can produce incorrect or rubbish conclusions the A+B theorem is correct
> because it dan be demonstrated to be true. This cannot be done with a logic
> syllogism where the syllogism may be formally valid but not true of the
> facts e.g.
>
> All ducks are geese
> All swans are ducks
> Therfore All swans are geese.
>
> Which is utter rubbish. The same cannot be said about the A+B Theorem.
>
> Your second comment in which you appear perplexed is because you have your
> wires crossed.
> Vic Bridger
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Timothy Carpenter" <timbeau_hk@yahoo.co.uk>
> To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 12:17 AM
> Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Fwd: RE: [distributism] The Rabbit
>
>
>> Dar Vic,
>>
>> A theorem can indeed reflect the facts while coming to an incorrect
>> conclusion.
>>
>> Am a little perplexed - you appear to be accusing Bill of 'utter tripe'
> for
>> even though this snip may not be from Bill verbatim, Bill has proposed in
>> the past that there are defects in the accounting system revealed by A+B,
>> corrected by dividend and that the situation misleads entrepreneurs. Is
> this
>> so or was the last post a snip too far?
>>
>> Tim
>>
>>
>> On 20/4/05 5:53 am, "Vic Bridger" <socred@ecn.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>> This is a good example of arguing with one who commences with a
> different
>>> premise. It serves no purpose to discuss the A+B with anyone coming from
> an
>>> orthodox standpoint. The test of any theorem including the A+B is
> whether or
>>> not it reflects the facts. That is whether or not the conclusion is
> correct.
>>> The A+B Theorem can stand on its own irrespective of what measurements
> are
>>> used. The statement;
>>> "Social Credit analysis - based on the A + B theorem
>>> in the form of reductio ad absurdum - concludes there
>>> is a defect in the system of accounting which
>>> entrepreneurs use to measure the effectiveness of
>>> their decisions that is not resolvable at the level
>>> of the individual firm."
>>>
>>> is evidence of poor logic and pre-conceived ideas. The reductio ad
> absurdum
>>> applies to the writer of the statement. It is his opinion not supported
> with
>>> any evidence. The conclusion referred to is utter tripe and indicates
> the
>>> paucity in either understanding or lack of reading.
>>> Vic Bridger
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "William B. Ryan" <w_b_ryan@yahoo.com>
>>> To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 8:40 AM
>>> Subject: [socialcredit] Fwd: RE: [distributism] The Rabbit
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Note: forwarded message attached.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> __________________________________
>>>> Do you Yahoo!?
>>>> Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
>>>> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> You're subscribed to this list with the email socred@ecn.net.au
>>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to
>>>> socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com
>>>> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> You're subscribed to this list with the email timbeau_hk@yahoo.co.uk
>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to
>>> socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com
>>> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> You're subscribed to this list with the email socred@ecn.net.au
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to
>> socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com
>> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> You're subscribed to this list with the email timbeau_hk@yahoo.co.uk
> To unsubscribe, send a message to
> socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com
> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message