inherit
Champion of Kirkwall
1212
0
8,025
Sifr
3,737
Aug 25, 2016 20:05:11 GMT
August 2016
sifr
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire
|
Post by Sifr on Dec 21, 2018 0:15:07 GMT
But science isn't just logic. Science uses logic, but there needs to be a non-logical component to create the hypotheses, which can then be tested. This testing, and the interpretation of results, occurs in a logical framework, but the hypothesis itself cannot be reached logically because we don't know that it's true. That's why we're testing it. Exactly this!
Observation can tell that the sun will always rise every day to the east and set every day to the west.
However, further observation will reveal that the length of those days becomes increasingly shorter over the course of half a year, before increasing again over another half year. These observations allowed us to logically deduce roughly when the longest and shortest days would occur, which then allowed us to test whether or not our predicted dates matched during the next solstice.
Further testing eventually revealed that the solstices do not always fall on the same day every year, but will always occur within the same span of 2-3 days. Meaning that even though our initial predictive models may have been slightly wrong, the basic principle behind it was relatively sound and we only needed to refine the model to gain more accurate results for next time.
Science is basically one long sequence of trial and error to figure out how not to be wrong the next time.
|
|
inherit
N7
289
0
Sept 21, 2024 0:54:11 GMT
8,016
Terminator Force
4,314
August 2016
terminatorforce
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
TerminatorForce2
|
Post by Terminator Force on Dec 21, 2018 1:03:47 GMT
You guys love to start with the outcome, not very logical. Isn't that a common approach when you're investigating anything?
When a detective investigates a murder, they already know the outcome, but they need to work backwards to figure out how and why?
The A Priori Argument fallacy. Also sets you up for the fall. Then pride consumes and obfuscate indefinitely will you do. You guys love to start with the outcome, not very logical. You're right. That wouldn't be logical. In logic, the reasoning must always precede the conclusion. To do otherwise is rationalization, which I consider to be the greatest human failing. Why it's important one always start from a neutral position.
|
|
inherit
N7
289
0
Sept 21, 2024 0:54:11 GMT
8,016
Terminator Force
4,314
August 2016
terminatorforce
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
TerminatorForce2
|
Post by Terminator Force on Dec 21, 2018 1:27:24 GMT
But science isn't just logic. Science uses logic, but there needs to be a non-logical component to create the hypotheses, which can then be tested. This testing, and the interpretation of results, occurs in a logical framework, but the hypothesis itself cannot be reached logically because we don't know that it's true. That's why we're testing it. Exactly this!
Observation can tell that the sun will always rise every day to the east and set every day to the west.
However, further observation will reveal that the length of those days becomes increasingly shorter over the course of half a year, before increasing again over another half year. These observations allowed us to logically deduce roughly when the longest and shortest days would occur, which then allowed us to test whether or not our predicted dates matched during the next solstice.
Further testing eventually revealed that the solstices do not always fall on the same day every year, but will always occur within the same span of 2-3 days. Meaning that even though our initial predictive models may have been slightly wrong, the basic principle behind it was relatively sound and we only needed to refine the model to gain more accurate results for next time.
Science is basically one long sequence of trial and error to figure out how not to be wrong the next time.
So how do you explain the analemma on a globe? Why does the sun make wider circles during winter? Oh...
|
|
Sylvius the Mad
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 686 Likes: 740
inherit
1078
0
Jul 17, 2019 20:15:37 GMT
740
Sylvius the Mad
686
August 2016
sylvius
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Sylvius the Mad on Dec 21, 2018 4:36:05 GMT
Isn't that a common approach when you're investigating anything?
When a detective investigates a murder, they already know the outcome, but they need to work backwards to figure out how and why?
The A Priori Argument fallacy. Also sets you up for the fall. Then pride consumes and obfuscate indefinitely will you do. You're right. That wouldn't be logical. In logic, the reasoning must always precede the conclusion. To do otherwise is rationalization, which I consider to be the greatest human failing. Why it's important one always start from a neutral position. But you're not doing that. You're asserting the earth is flat. How do you know? I would like specifics.
|
|
Sylvius the Mad
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 686 Likes: 740
inherit
1078
0
Jul 17, 2019 20:15:37 GMT
740
Sylvius the Mad
686
August 2016
sylvius
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Sylvius the Mad on Dec 21, 2018 4:40:58 GMT
So how do you explain the analemma on a globe? Why does the sun make wider circles in the winter? Because it's closer to us. The two halves of the analemma would be the same size if the earth's orbit were circular, but it's not. The earth's orbit is an ellipse, and the eccentricity creates the irregular shape.
|
|
inherit
N7
289
0
Sept 21, 2024 0:54:11 GMT
8,016
Terminator Force
4,314
August 2016
terminatorforce
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
TerminatorForce2
|
Post by Terminator Force on Dec 21, 2018 9:37:33 GMT
Again, I don't assert anything, the world is obviously and observably flat. Never seen curve or anything else to suggest curve, therefore no logical reason to assert curve. So how do you explain the analemma on a globe? Why does the sun make wider circles in the winter? Because it's closer to us. The two halves of the analemma would be the same size if the earth's orbit were circular, but it's not. The earth's orbit is an ellipse, and the eccentricity creates the irregular shape. So the Earth gets colder as the as the sun approaches 391 Earth Diameters closer and the winter anelemma gets wider the closer the sun gets? Seems a little backwards to me, but let the audience decide for themselves. Also sun gets closer by 3.3% and that's enough to more then double anelemma size?
|
|
inherit
Champion of Kirkwall
1212
0
8,025
Sifr
3,737
Aug 25, 2016 20:05:11 GMT
August 2016
sifr
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire
|
Post by Sifr on Dec 21, 2018 10:11:35 GMT
So the Earth gets colder as the as the sun approaches 391 Earth Diameters closer and the winter anelemma gets wider the closer the sun gets? Seems a little backwards to me, but let the audience decide for themselves. Also sun gets closer by 3.3% and that's enough to more then double anelemma size? You're forgetting that this only applies to the Northern hemisphere.
Even though the Earth is closer to the sun in January, the axial tilt means those living in the Northern Hemisphere experience shorter days, due to less sunlight falling on the Earth and thus temperatures end up getting much colder. Whereas those living in the southern hemisphere experience longer days, receive far more sunlight, which leads to temperatures getting warmer.
That's why Australia is currently experiencing Summer, not Winter.
|
|
inherit
N7
289
0
Sept 21, 2024 0:54:11 GMT
8,016
Terminator Force
4,314
August 2016
terminatorforce
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
TerminatorForce2
|
Post by Terminator Force on Dec 21, 2018 10:22:31 GMT
So the Earth gets colder as the as the sun approaches 391 Earth Diameters closer and the winter anelemma gets wider the closer the sun gets? Seems a little backwards to me, but let the audience decide for themselves. Also sun gets closer by 3.3% and that's enough to more then double anelemma size? You're forgetting that this only applies to the Northern hemisphere.
Even though the Earth is closer to the sun in January, the axial tilt means those living in the Northern Hemisphere experience shorter days, due to less sunlight falling on the Earth and thus temperatures end up getting much colder. Whereas those living in the southern hemisphere experience longer days, receive far more sunlight, which leads to temperatures getting warmer.
That's why Australia is currently experiencing Summer, not Winter.
So you're asserting that the axial tilt bringing us 1/4 of Earth's diameter further away from sun is enough to negate the sun being 391 Earth diameters closer to Earth? Sounds like an extraordinary claim to me that would require extraordinary evidence, like maybe evidence that proves distance to sun.
|
|
inherit
Champion of Kirkwall
1212
0
8,025
Sifr
3,737
Aug 25, 2016 20:05:11 GMT
August 2016
sifr
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire
|
Post by Sifr on Dec 21, 2018 10:54:25 GMT
So you're asserting that the axial tilt bringing us 1/4 of Earth's diameter further away from sun is enough to negate the sun being 391 Earth diameters closer to Earth? Sounds like an extraordinary claim to me that would require extraordinary evidence, like maybe evidence that proves distance to sun. By observing the motion of planets, we can determine what their parallax is, allowing us to calculate their distance from Earth. Combining this principle with observations made during transits of Venus across the Sun, we can then accurately determine the solar parallax, thereby giving us the distance between Earth and the Sun.
|
|
inherit
N7
289
0
Sept 21, 2024 0:54:11 GMT
8,016
Terminator Force
4,314
August 2016
terminatorforce
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
TerminatorForce2
|
Post by Terminator Force on Dec 21, 2018 11:09:20 GMT
So you're asserting that the axial tilt bringing us 1/4 of Earth's diameter further away from sun is enough to negate the sun being 391 Earth diameters closer to Earth? Sounds like an extraordinary claim to me that would require extraordinary evidence, like maybe evidence that proves distance to sun. By observing the motion of planets, we can determine what their parallax is, allowing us to calculate their distance from Earth. Combining this principle with observations made during transits of Venus across the Sun, we can then accurately determine the solar parallax, thereby giving us the distance between Earth and the Sun.
Too many assumptions in that claim. Like the assumption that Venus is same size as Earth and assumption of Earth radius, both of which are required for distance to sun calculations.
|
|
inherit
Champion of Kirkwall
1212
0
8,025
Sifr
3,737
Aug 25, 2016 20:05:11 GMT
August 2016
sifr
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire
|
Post by Sifr on Dec 21, 2018 11:52:17 GMT
Too many assumptions in that claim. Like the assumption that Venus is same size as Earth and assumption of Earth radius, both of which are required for distance to sun calculations. That's why we continuously have to retest our assumptions/hypothesises over and over again, to better determine whether they hold up to further scrutiny and ensure that we will always get the most accurate results we can. We didn't measure the distances of planets and the sun once and declare that was the number we found was the definitive answer, we continuously run these experiments to make certain that we're not mistaken, as well as come up with better tests that allow us to gather more accurate results.
Should a later testing method prove that our original assumption/hypothesis was incorrect, then we abandon it and develop a new hypothesis that better matches the results, which we test until that too may potentially be disproven down the line.
The problem with the Flat Earth model is that if you actually try to test it out, the data you gather will often fail to match the results one would expect from the proposed Flat-Earth, geocentric model that is often being advocated. Even if some experiments do seem to support the FE model, other experiments will outright contract the FE model/theory entirely. But rather than amend the theory and model to better reflect the data gathered, Flat-Earthers refuse to accept any results that contradict what they want to be the results. For example, the geocentric model cannot account for how Jupiter has observable moons clearly orbiting the planet, which would contract the notion that all objects in the universe revolve entirely around the Earth. Those claiming that the Earth does not rotate either, cannot however account for the rotation of Mars. Both of these have been readily observable for centuries, by countless amateur astronomers using telescopes with magnification far less than we have today.
|
|
inherit
N7
289
0
Sept 21, 2024 0:54:11 GMT
8,016
Terminator Force
4,314
August 2016
terminatorforce
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
TerminatorForce2
|
Post by Terminator Force on Dec 21, 2018 12:00:57 GMT
Too many assumptions in that claim. Like the assumption that Venus is same size as Earth and assumption of Earth radius, both of which are required for distance to sun calculations. That's why we continuously have to retest our assumptions/hypothesises over and over again, to better determine whether they hold up to further scrutiny and ensure that we will always get the most accurate results we can. We didn't measure the distances of planets and the sun once and declare that was the number we found was the definitive answer, we continuously run these experiments to make certain that we're not mistaken, as well as come up with better tests that allow us to gather more accurate results.
Should a later testing method prove that our original assumption/hypothesis was incorrect, then we abandon it and develop a new hypothesis that better matches the results, which we test until that too may potentially be disproven down the line.
The problem with the Flat Earth model is that if you actually try to test it out, the data you gather will often fail to match the results one would expect from the proposed Flat-Earth, geocentric model that is often being advocated. Even if some experiments do seem to support the FE model, other experiments will outright contract the FE model/theory entirely. But rather than amend the theory and model to better reflect the data gathered, Flat-Earthers refuse to accept any results that contradict what they want to be the results. For example, the geocentric model cannot account for how Jupiter has observable moons clearly orbiting the planet, which would contract the notion that all objects in the universe revolve entirely around the Earth. Those claiming that the Earth does not rotate either, cannot however account for the rotation of Mars. Both of these have been readily observable for centuries, by countless amateur astronomers using telescopes with magnification far less than we have today.
Models are pseudoscience and an reification fallacy, why I don't subscribe to any model.
|
|
inherit
ღ Grumpy Old Man
1046
0
Feb 12, 2024 15:48:21 GMT
15,499
Space Cowboy
They call me a Space Cowboy
4,937
Aug 17, 2016 20:09:17 GMT
August 2016
spacecowboy
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Jade Empire
|
Post by Space Cowboy on Dec 21, 2018 12:22:10 GMT
|
|
inherit
Champion of Kirkwall
1212
0
8,025
Sifr
3,737
Aug 25, 2016 20:05:11 GMT
August 2016
sifr
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire
|
Post by Sifr on Dec 21, 2018 12:24:36 GMT
Models are pseudoscience and an reification fallacy, why I don't subscribe to any model. Wait... so why exactly are you convinced that the Earth is flat, rather than a globe?
Wouldn't it fail to matter at that point, if you completely reject both side's models as mere pseudoscience? Why flat and not a triangle?
|
|
inherit
N7
289
0
Sept 21, 2024 0:54:11 GMT
8,016
Terminator Force
4,314
August 2016
terminatorforce
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
TerminatorForce2
|
Post by Terminator Force on Dec 21, 2018 12:29:39 GMT
Reification (also known as concretism, hypostatization, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete realevent or physical entity.
So in this case, asserting a model is real. The whole purpose of logical fallacies is to deceive. Why it's important to learn how to spot logical fallacies.
|
|
inherit
N7
289
0
Sept 21, 2024 0:54:11 GMT
8,016
Terminator Force
4,314
August 2016
terminatorforce
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
TerminatorForce2
|
Post by Terminator Force on Dec 21, 2018 12:32:45 GMT
Models are pseudoscience and an reification fallacy, why I don't subscribe to any model. Wait... so why exactly are you convinced that the Earth is flat, rather than a globe?
Wouldn't it fail to matter at that point, if you completely reject both side's models as mere pseudoscience? Why flat and not a triangle?
It's very simple, the world is obviously and observably flat. So until there is any logical argument to the contrary, there is no logical reason to assume otherwise.
|
|
inherit
Champion of Kirkwall
1212
0
8,025
Sifr
3,737
Aug 25, 2016 20:05:11 GMT
August 2016
sifr
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire
|
Post by Sifr on Dec 21, 2018 12:47:01 GMT
It's very simple, the world is obviously and observably flat. So until there is any logical argument to the contrary, there is no logical reason to assume otherwise. So... we're going to just ignore that Lunar eclipses demonstrate that the shadow of the Earth has a curvature to it, as well as other planets (like Mars) can be observed via telescope to be rotating spheres, which would lead one to question why Earth alone is the sole pancake surrounded by bowling balls in our solar system?
|
|
inherit
N7
289
0
Sept 21, 2024 0:54:11 GMT
8,016
Terminator Force
4,314
August 2016
terminatorforce
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
TerminatorForce2
|
Post by Terminator Force on Dec 21, 2018 12:52:18 GMT
It's very simple, the world is obviously and observably flat. So until there is any logical argument to the contrary, there is no logical reason to assume otherwise. So... we're going to just ignore that Lunar eclipses demonstrate that the shadow of the Earth has a curvature to it, as well as other planets (like Mars) can be observed via telescope to be rotating spheres, which would lead one to question why Earth alone is the sole pancake surrounded by bowling balls in our solar system? We could entertain this fallacious evidence of yours, but that would be a waste of time. Spotting fallacies helps save time arguing. Nip it in the bud, so they say.
|
|
inherit
Champion of Kirkwall
1212
0
8,025
Sifr
3,737
Aug 25, 2016 20:05:11 GMT
August 2016
sifr
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire
|
Post by Sifr on Dec 21, 2018 12:55:05 GMT
We could entertain this fallacious evidence of yours, but that would be a waste of time. Spotting fallacies helps save time arguing. Nip it in the bud, so they say. Which is an amusing choice of words, given your failure to spot the curve at all.
|
|
inherit
N7
289
0
Sept 21, 2024 0:54:11 GMT
8,016
Terminator Force
4,314
August 2016
terminatorforce
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
TerminatorForce2
|
Post by Terminator Force on Dec 21, 2018 13:13:52 GMT
We could entertain this fallacious evidence of yours, but that would be a waste of time. Spotting fallacies helps save time arguing. Nip it in the bud, so they say. Which is an amusing choice of words, given your failure to spot the curve at all. You're asserting the curve of the moon is Earth shadow is an affirming the consequent fallacy. If P then Q, if Q then P If curve on moon, then curved Earth, if Earth curved then shadow curve on moon. If car is out of gas, car won't start, if car won't start, no gas in the car. .... But what if something else is wrong with the car?
|
|
inherit
2754
0
Sept 30, 2024 21:03:52 GMT
6,000
Son of Dorn
Fortifying everything.
6,295
Jan 11, 2017 14:17:27 GMT
January 2017
doomlolz
Dragon Age Inquisition
|
Post by Son of Dorn on Dec 21, 2018 13:20:16 GMT
I vote that we start a fundraiser in order to build a time machine so that TF and the other flat earth believers can return to their own time line.
|
|
inherit
ღ Grumpy Old Man
1046
0
Feb 12, 2024 15:48:21 GMT
15,499
Space Cowboy
They call me a Space Cowboy
4,937
Aug 17, 2016 20:09:17 GMT
August 2016
spacecowboy
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Jade Empire
|
Post by Space Cowboy on Dec 21, 2018 13:24:20 GMT
Wait... so why exactly are you convinced that the Earth is flat, rather than a globe?
Wouldn't it fail to matter at that point, if you completely reject both side's models as mere pseudoscience? Why flat and not a triangle?
It's very simple, the world is obviously and observably flat. So until there is any logical argument to the contrary, there is no logical reason to assume otherwise. The sun obviously and observably rises in the east and sets in the west. the earth obviously and observably casts a curved shadow on the moon, the moon obviously and observably blocks the sun during a solar eclipse, and finally the sun obviously and observably lights up the earth when it appears in the sky during daylight hours, yet you reject all this. Maybe your eyesight needs checking. Also it’s hilarious that you claim the sun isn’t a source of light during the day, in an attempt to hand wave time zone differences, yet use the sun casting shadows as ‘proof’ that it isn’t as far away as everyone says it is. Models are not claims or logical arguments, so can’t be logical fallacies. If you are going to lecture me on what a fallacy is, you better understand it yourself first. Just saying.
|
|
inherit
Champion of Kirkwall
1212
0
8,025
Sifr
3,737
Aug 25, 2016 20:05:11 GMT
August 2016
sifr
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire
|
Post by Sifr on Dec 21, 2018 13:32:31 GMT
If car is out of gas, car won't start, if car won't start, no gas in the car. .... But what if something else is wrong with the car? Then you run other tests to determine whether or not there is anything wrong with the car.
If there isn't anything wrong with the car and you've already determined there's no gas in it, then that's likely the reason why it's not starting. If repeated tests determine each time that the car will not start without the presence of gas in the tank, then the only conclusion one can draw from the evidence is that gas is required for the car to work.
|
|
inherit
N7
289
0
Sept 21, 2024 0:54:11 GMT
8,016
Terminator Force
4,314
August 2016
terminatorforce
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
TerminatorForce2
|
Post by Terminator Force on Dec 21, 2018 13:38:06 GMT
It's very simple, the world is obviously and observably flat. So until there is any logical argument to the contrary, there is no logical reason to assume otherwise. The sun obviously and observably rises in the east and sets in the west. the earth obviously and observably casts a curved shadow on the moon, the moon obviously and observably blocks the sun during a solar eclipse, and finally the sun obviously and observably lights up the earth when it appears in the sky during daylight hours, yet you reject all this. Maybe your eyesight needs checking. Also it’s hilarious that you claim the sun isn’t a source of light during the day, in an attempt to hand wave time zone differences, yet use the sun casting shadows as ‘proof’ that it isn’t as far away as everyone says it is. Models are not claims or logical arguments, so can’t be logical fallacies. If you are going to lecture me on what a fallacy is, you better understand it yourself first. Just saying. The crux of it all is you can't just look in the sky for what's beneath your feet, you have to be able to measure Earth curvature.
|
|
inherit
N7
289
0
Sept 21, 2024 0:54:11 GMT
8,016
Terminator Force
4,314
August 2016
terminatorforce
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
TerminatorForce2
|
Post by Terminator Force on Dec 21, 2018 13:39:22 GMT
If car is out of gas, car won't start, if car won't start, no gas in the car. .... But what if something else is wrong with the car? Then you run other tests to determine whether or not there is anything wrong with the car.
If there isn't anything wrong with the car and you've already determined there's no gas in it, then that's likely the reason why it's not starting. If repeated tests determine each time that the car will not start without the presence of gas in the tank, then the only conclusion one can draw from the evidence is that gas is required for the car to work.
The point is there are or could be other explanations. Why you can never start with your outcome.
|
|