The parts can't be put together if nothing is joining them together.
And a machine by definition has interrelated parts.
And a machine by definition has interrelated parts.
Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: May 28, 2026, 12:49 am
Thread Rating:
|
What is "FAITH"
|
  RE: What is "FAITH"
July 16, 2013 at 2:19 pm
(This post was last modified: July 16, 2013 at 2:34 pm by Consilius.)
If they are not joined, there is nothing keeping them together, and they are just a pile of metal fragments on the floor.
What is the difference between that and your hypothetical machine? (July 16, 2013 at 2:19 pm)Consilius Wrote: If they are not joined, there is nothing keeping them together, and they are just a pile of metal fragments on the floor. Inertia is keeping them together. I put it together most carefully so that nothing falls apart. 
So it's like a game of Jenga?
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould  
H0ary H0bbit Religious Views: “Never to suffer would never to have been blessed.” - Edgar Allan Poe
Easily broken machine then with unbreakable parts? :p
Okay Consilius, you ARE making a fallacy of composition. I don't need the machine analogy, though your objections to it are... Lol-worthy to say the least.
It is true that standing up at a sports stadium will net you a better view than if you had been sitting down. This is true for any particular seat at a traditional sports stadium. But if EVERY person in EVERY seat stood up at the same time, that doesn't occur. That's the sort of error you're making and instead of admitting it, you seem to be arguing that such is even a fallacy to begin with, even though it's long been noted to be one.
As for our machine analogy, inertia, the stuff that is keeping our unbreakable metal fragments together, is weak, and is not an unbreakable joinage. Hence, the machine can be broken.
MFM, you are referring to the Reverse Tinkerbell Effect, under which the more people believe something, the less true it becomes. That's not what I'm saying. A whole of something is the total of all its parts. If all its parts are blue, the whole will be blue. If all its parts are strong except one, the whole is only as strong as its weakest link. RE: What is "FAITH"
July 16, 2013 at 9:14 pm
(This post was last modified: July 16, 2013 at 9:14 pm by MindForgedManacle.)
(July 16, 2013 at 8:57 pm)Consilius Wrote: MFM, you are referring to the Reverse Tinkerbell Effect, under which the more people believe something, the less true it becomes. That's not what I'm saying. No, that;s NOT what I'm referring to. My analogy is an example of something being NOT true of the whole, even though it is true of any of its parts, i.e an example of the compositional fallacy you're making. Quote:A whole of something is the total of all its parts. Again, that's just fractal wrongness. Again, to say that what is true of a part (or even every part) is true of the whole is a logical fallacy. I don't even know what we're talking about now... |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
