NegativeNull to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish • 7 days agoThey don’t think it be like it is, but it do!i.imgflip.comimagemessage-square30fedilinkarrow-up1316arrow-down17
arrow-up1309arrow-down1imageThey don’t think it be like it is, but it do!i.imgflip.comNegativeNull to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish • 7 days agomessage-square30fedilink
minus-squareNegativeNullOPlinkfedilinkEnglish0•6 days ago If birds are dinos, then dinos are reptiles I’m not sure what is structurally wrong with that statement. Birds are dinosaurs (most people know this by now). Using the exact same logic, dinosaurs are reptiles as well.
minus-square@Portosian@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglish9•edit-26 days agoa= “birds are dinos” b= “dinos are reptiles” c= “birds are reptiles” Structure: If a then b, therefore c a does not imply b without an additional statement (which we can assume from the rest would be “because birds are reptiles”) You’ve basically just said birds are reptiles because birds are reptiles
minus-squareNegativeNullOPlinkfedilinkEnglish3•6 days agoI see. Thank you you for that explanation. I was letting inference do some heavy lifting. (and yes, I’m not a great communicator)
I’m not sure what is structurally wrong with that statement. Birds are dinosaurs (most people know this by now). Using the exact same logic, dinosaurs are reptiles as well.
a= “birds are dinos”
b= “dinos are reptiles”
c= “birds are reptiles”
Structure: If a then b, therefore c
a does not imply b without an additional statement (which we can assume from the rest would be “because birds are reptiles”)
You’ve basically just said birds are reptiles because birds are reptiles
I see. Thank you you for that explanation. I was letting inference do some heavy lifting. (and yes, I’m not a great communicator)