On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 03:17:56AM +0000, chris peck wrote:
>
> But logic proves validity, not truth. We shouldnt assume there is any truth
> about a valid argument. We can question the premises of a valid argument,
> and should do so if its conclusions are as counter intuitive as those of
> the DH. But which premises are at fault?
You keep saying the DA (its an argument, not a hyptothesis) is
counterintuitive. I don't find it so.
>
> isnt there is a sense in which (in a constantly rising population) anyone
> in history could formulate the DH and come to the same conclusion, and
> looking back we can see their expectancy would be wrong. Over and over
> again the DH would predict doom soon, yet it never comes. Inductively then,
> we shouldnt accept it.
The DA is invalid in a constantly rising population. It requires that
population curve is in fact bounded. (Often it is stated that the total
population is finite (ie integrated population curve), but it can be
extended to the infinite total population case if the population curve
is bounded).
Intuitively, it is hard to imagine the population curve continuing to
rise ad infinitum.
--
*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
may safely ignore this attachment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
Mathematics 0425 253119 (")
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 R.Standish.domain.name.hidden
Australia http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
Received on Sun Jul 03 2005 - 05:15:46 PDT