Tuesday, June 17, 2003

proovin innythang

thays more to this proovin thangs than i got aroun to yesturdy n ifn ye study it much, ye fine tis hard to proov much of innythang whuther posativ or negativ n heres why

furst off, ye got yer 2 types of logick: deduckshun n induckshun. one of em proovs thangs beyond the shado of a dout but t'othern dont. once ye suss out how thay wurks, ye can understan why so lets start with deduckshun

deduckshun wurks ever time n kin proov or disproov everthang it can handle. its the kinda logick that takes ass-umpshuns n proovs thangs lack whenever ye say (1) ifn it rains, myra jeanll carry her bumbershoot n (2) myra jeans acarryin her bumbershoot, witch means tharfor that tis arainin. wurks evertam, but thays problems with it. ye probly dont know myra jean but lack mos folks, she cant tell fer sartin if its agonna rain so ifn it aint arainin whenever she leevs then she might not member to take her bumbershoot so ye kin attack this kine argumint by attackin its ass-umpshuns.

heres a nuthern that ye kin read in leo tolstoys long story or short novel bout ivan illyich witch it goes lack this -- (1) all men are mortal, (2) ivan is a man, tharfor ivan must die. now mos folks cud agree with thisn since everbidy thay ever known is either daid or adyin. problem is that ye kin attack the furst ass-umpshun, bleeve tor not: cud be that not all folks is mortal, that sum of ems gonna live ferever n we cant no fer sartin till all of em dies. fack is, the ass-umpshuns ye need to make deduckshun wurk cums from induckshun

induckshun cant proov innythang cumpleetly but only probly witch that means ye get the prob-billty that sumthins true n whenver ye reech this point, ye got the problem that ye cant proov innythang cumpleetly jes make the best argumints ye kin n no matter how much evdince ye pile up, ye cant never proov nuthin ceptn the prob-billty that it cud be true. fer agzample, ye watch a thang happen overn over agin n purt soon ye induck that tappens all the tam, lack the sun acumin up everday. we all ass-sum that the suns agonna cum up n so far, we aint never bin let down but that dont proov twill cum up tall since thangs cud happen to stop it lack the end of the worl or the sun exploadin or dyin or who knows whut?

i cant help but thank bout all this whenever thays talkin bout them lost weppons of mass destruckshun that saddam hussein sed he dint have n george dubya bush n tonyblare sed he did. now everbidy whos areadin this knows thay aint no way to proov anythang morn the prob-billty that he dun had em or not n whut cud be used to provt? ye cant zackly hold out yer empty han n use it fer proof, speshly afacin this kine evidence: Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction.

so yeed natcherly speck we'd be able to proov he had em once we tuck over, n weev ben a alookin n alookin n alookin n even now we cant proov he had em

ist inny wunder he cudnt proov he dint have em?

wunder how much time weel need to finish lookin?

No comments: