@Alex
I agree and that;s the point. People like to use "logical arguments" (TAG or others) and they don't see the invalid parts, my point is just because things LOOK completely valid (every step in the formula is technically mathematically sound and the only problem is actually an exception (divide by 0) rather then any of the actual steps) if they lead to conclusions not in line with reality then reality wins and there is some hidden invalidity that may not be apparent in the argument. Logical arguments can never trump reality no matter how thorough they seem. Another example that I use is after a myocardial infarction in patients who survive atleast 48 hours the primary cause of death is ventricular arrhythmia. We have medications that suppress ventricular arrhythmia, so logically using these medications in patients after a heart attack should increase survival. The CAST trial did just that and found a marked INCREASE in mortality in the treated group.
My point is that logic can only take you so far, you have to test your logic in reality to see if there is a hidden flaw.
I agree and that;s the point. People like to use "logical arguments" (TAG or others) and they don't see the invalid parts, my point is just because things LOOK completely valid (every step in the formula is technically mathematically sound and the only problem is actually an exception (divide by 0) rather then any of the actual steps) if they lead to conclusions not in line with reality then reality wins and there is some hidden invalidity that may not be apparent in the argument. Logical arguments can never trump reality no matter how thorough they seem. Another example that I use is after a myocardial infarction in patients who survive atleast 48 hours the primary cause of death is ventricular arrhythmia. We have medications that suppress ventricular arrhythmia, so logically using these medications in patients after a heart attack should increase survival. The CAST trial did just that and found a marked INCREASE in mortality in the treated group.
My point is that logic can only take you so far, you have to test your logic in reality to see if there is a hidden flaw.
