On 12/04/2013 07:39 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > Yes (he would say), assuming that you were chosen at random from the > population of humans, it is a VALID inference from the fact that you can > break concrete that humans can break concrete. It is valid because we > would, if we continued to pick random individuals indefinitely come > ultimately to the correct conclusion, say, that less than .01 percent of > humans can break concrete. Unfortunately, though valid, this inference is > extraordinarily "weak". The adjective "weak" seems to relate to how much > money you should be willing to bet on it. In this case, with the sample > size at one, and the population at billions, Peirce would advise you to bet > very little if anything, until you had a much larger sample.
This effectively demonstrates the fragility of logic (or any purely delusional/mental construct). In practice, were you to go around actually testing people against concrete, the success rate would _increase_ over time for 2 reasons: 1) people would game the test and 2) your test would evolve. In the end, inference relies, in a rather circular way, on ever more inference. -- glen ep ropella -- 971-255-2847 ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
