Exclude to Affirm

[bricklayer]

It is good to be able to affirm that 2+2=4.
It is better to be able to affirm that 2+2= (4-exclusively).
We do this by the process of exclusion.
It is the foundation for the "scientific method".
It is what the bible refers to as "testing".

Intellectually, as contingent beings, we approach ontological certainty by the process of exclusion.
The process of exclusion is a sequence of inferences, a chronological sequence of intellectual perceptions.
Intellectually, as reasoning contingent beings, we ontologically sequence our perceptions.

An affirmation is an expression of the absence of doubt.
Doubt is removed by the process of exclusion.

I am left to believe that we are all left to believe something,
and I'm left to believe that this is how it happens.

How about you?

 

[Paradoxum]

Makes sense.

I don't know if it is true because I haven't excluded all other theories

 

[bricklayer]

Makes sense.

I don't know if it is true because I haven't excluded all other theories

I think you've got it.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

If A and only A then A and only A. Also if A and only A then non not-A.

At least that's how my teachers always explained my grades to me.

 

[quatona]

It is good to be able to affirm that 2+2=4.
It is better to be able to affirm that 2+2= (4-exclusively).
We do this by the process of exclusion.
It is the foundation for the "scientific method".
It is what the bible refers to as "testing".

Intellectually, as contingent beings, we approach ontological certainty by the process of exclusion.
The process of exclusion is a sequence of inferences, a chronological sequence of intellectual perceptions.
Intellectually, as reasoning contingent beings, we ontologically sequence our perceptions.

An affirmation is an expression of the absence of doubt.
Doubt is removed by the process of exclusion.

I am left to believe that we are all left to believe something,
and I'm left to believe that this is how it happens.

How about you?

I don´t think that my affirmation of "2+2=4 exclusively" rests on the exclusion of each other possible result.

 

[bricklayer]

I don´t think that my affirmation of "2+2=4 exclusively" rests on the exclusion of each other possible result.

That is, quite literally, what it means.

 

[bricklayer]

If A and only A then A and only A. Also if A and only A then non not-A.

At least that's how my teachers always explained my grades to me.

Close.
A is
A is A
A is not non-A
either A or non-A
etc

 

[cXXo]

It is good to be able to affirm that 2+2=4.
It is better to be able to affirm that 2+2= (4-exclusively).
We do this by the process of exclusion.
It is the foundation for the "scientific method".
It is what the bible refers to as "testing".

Intellectually, as contingent beings, we approach ontological certainty by the process of exclusion.
The process of exclusion is a sequence of inferences, a chronological sequence of intellectual perceptions.
Intellectually, as reasoning contingent beings, we ontologically sequence our perceptions.

An affirmation is an expression of the absence of doubt.
Doubt is removed by the process of exclusion.

I am left to believe that we are all left to believe something,
and I'm left to believe that this is how it happens.

How about you?

Cognition plays a big role here.

I have learned how physical reality works. I know the process by which to work out that 2+2=4. I mean, given that there are an infinite number of numbers, I could never ascertain through exclusion that 2+2 doesn't equal something else too.

 

[bricklayer]

Cognition plays a big role here.

I have learned how physical reality works. I know the process by which to work out that 2+2=4. I mean, given that there are an infinite number of numbers, I could never ascertain through exclusion that 2+2 doesn't equal something else too.

... yet you have done just that.

The aspect of cognition to which you refer is pattern recognition, which is in essence inclusive, but only to "short cut" the exclusion process. Patterns exclude much more than they include.

 

[quatona]

That is, quite literally, what it means.

Exactly. And therefore it´s not true that I had to go through the hassle of testing and excluding every other result.

 

[bricklayer]

Exactly. And therefore it´s not true that I had to go through the hassle of testing and excluding every other result.

Exclusion is exhaustive in effect but not in affect. We have affective ways around the exhaustive nature of exclusion, such as patterning. Ultimately ,you did effectively exhaustively exclude all of the other answers.

 

[quatona]

Exclusion is exhaustive in effect but not in affect. We have affective ways around the exhaustive nature of exclusion, such as patterning. Ultimately ,you did effectively exhaustively exclude all of the other answers.

I was under the impression that i accepted it for the sole reason that this was the way mathematics had defined it.
Btw. 2+2=4 is not necessarily an exclusive statement.
3+1=4
2+2=3+1.


I am not necessarily disagreeing with your notion that we arrive at a lot of our conclusions by means of exclusion. I just happen to think that mathematical statements aren´t really particularly convincing examples for that.

 

[cXXo]

... yet you have done just that.

The aspect of cognition to which you refer is pattern recognition, which is in essence inclusive, but only to "short cut" the exclusion process. Patterns exclude much more than they include.

No, that is not what I have done. Why are you claiming I've done something I haven't?

 

[bricklayer]

I was under the impression that i accepted it for the sole reason that this was the way mathematics had defined it.
Btw. 2+2=4 is not necessarily an exclusive statement.
3+1=4
2+2=3+1.


"2+2=3+1"? How can you know this but that both have a sum of 4?
"3+1" is just another way of saying "exclusively".

I did not contend that (2+2)exclusively = 4.
I contend that 2+2 = exclusively.
2+2=4 is an inclusive statement.
2+2=exclusively is an exclusive statement.

As to your "sole reason", I had the same impression until I began to consider the first-principle of exclusion.

I am not necessarily disagreeing with your notion that we arrive at a lot of our conclusions by means of exclusion. I just happen to think that mathematical statements arena´t really particularly convincing examples for that.

Too true. You really had me turned around with that 3+1 thing. Good show!

 

[Blayz]

It is good to be able to affirm that 2+2=4.
It is better to be able to affirm that 2+2= (4-exclusively).
We do this by the process of exclusion.
It is the foundation for the "scientific method".

No it isn't. The scientific method is inductive. It is not possible to exclude all alternatives in an empirical setting.

One of the reasons science never proves anything.

I am left to believe that we are all left to believe something,
and I'm left to believe that this is how it happens.

How about you?

Your initial premise is false thus your reasoning unsound.

 

[bricklayer]

No it isn't. The scientific method is inductive. It is not possible to exclude all alternatives in an empirical setting.

One of the reasons science never proves anything.

It is affectively impossible to exclude all other possible answers, but we effectively do it all the time.

Testing, experimentation, is exclusion. Doubt is excluded as one approaches an affirmation.

 

[quatona]

Too true. You really had me turned around with that 3+1 thing. Good show!

Glad I could help!

I was expecting the theoretical explanation to do the trick rather than the practical example, though.

2+2=4 is a mere tautology, as determined by the semantics of the formal system "mathematics".

Whilst, when I am trying to determine how many apples are there in front of me, I will simply count them, get to the result and thereby excluding all other possibilities (not vice versa).

 

[quatona]

Doubt is excluded as one approaches an affirmation.

That´s undisputed I think. What, however, is being disputed: that exclusion is always the method to arrive at an affirmation. Oftentimes it´s the effect.

 

[someguy14]

Lies are only from the wicked one.

 

[bricklayer]

Glad I could help!

I was expecting the theoretical explanation to do the trick rather than the practical example, though.

2+2=4 is a mere tautology, as determined by the semantics of the formal system "mathematics".

Whilst, when I am trying to determine how many apples are there in front of me, I will simply count them, get to the result and thereby excluding all other possibilities (not vice versa).

Reread your above post; you have effectively excluded by affectively counting.
Again, I do not contend that we affectively exclude all other possibilities;
I contend that we effectively do it.