But if induction "doesn't need certainty to have knowledge," how is it "based on past evidence?" You've just argued a circular; logic doesn't hold in that condition.
But your proposition does not speak to certainty; it speaks to probability; an entirely different concept. I take your proposition at its word; every one of them.
Oops. Sorry guys. I went to vote on this debate, but I do not yet qualify to vote. I did read the Voting Policy, but forgot the restriction on new members. I will try to qualify in the next 6 days to enter a vote.
If there is "overwhelming inductive evidence," why is the proposition only probable, allowing for the potential of outlying arguments? Inductive reasoning being a logical method by specific to general reasoning. Doesn't seem to compute. Specifics find difficulty fitting into probables.
thanks, good to be here. Yes, that kind of qualification would be helpful. As a matter of fact, since I've just challenged a debate, I could employ that advice.
You established the timing of argument at one week, yet you taunt your opponent with "hurry up?" Are you really advocating loss of conduct for claiming your opponent cannot win, then pressing the clock? Okay, if that's your schtick, so be it. I can be accommodating. After all, "my evidence is irrifutable" [although the word is spelled with an 'e' following the 'rr'] is only upon unconditional biblical credibility, which your opponent is certainly at will to challenge.
The premise of this debate is confusing because the instigator, in presenting two definitions of the same word [vote] as a noun and verb doesn't really represent what is going on in voting for debates. I think the instigator is trying to say vote [n] is really an election; a collection of votes, in which one side acquires more votes than the other side, and is, therefore, the winner. So what's different about this proposition than what currently occurs? I entirely agree with Undefeatable.
Thank you, glad to be here
That reduces the matter to semantics. A rose by any other name...
But if induction "doesn't need certainty to have knowledge," how is it "based on past evidence?" You've just argued a circular; logic doesn't hold in that condition.
But your proposition does not speak to certainty; it speaks to probability; an entirely different concept. I take your proposition at its word; every one of them.
Oops. Sorry guys. I went to vote on this debate, but I do not yet qualify to vote. I did read the Voting Policy, but forgot the restriction on new members. I will try to qualify in the next 6 days to enter a vote.
If there is "overwhelming inductive evidence," why is the proposition only probable, allowing for the potential of outlying arguments? Inductive reasoning being a logical method by specific to general reasoning. Doesn't seem to compute. Specifics find difficulty fitting into probables.
thanks, good to be here. Yes, that kind of qualification would be helpful. As a matter of fact, since I've just challenged a debate, I could employ that advice.
You established the timing of argument at one week, yet you taunt your opponent with "hurry up?" Are you really advocating loss of conduct for claiming your opponent cannot win, then pressing the clock? Okay, if that's your schtick, so be it. I can be accommodating. After all, "my evidence is irrifutable" [although the word is spelled with an 'e' following the 'rr'] is only upon unconditional biblical credibility, which your opponent is certainly at will to challenge.
The premise of this debate is confusing because the instigator, in presenting two definitions of the same word [vote] as a noun and verb doesn't really represent what is going on in voting for debates. I think the instigator is trying to say vote [n] is really an election; a collection of votes, in which one side acquires more votes than the other side, and is, therefore, the winner. So what's different about this proposition than what currently occurs? I entirely agree with Undefeatable.