evolusi

yaa kenapa masih banyak orang yang ngga percaya evolusi ya? gw suka bingung dengan alesan alesan mereka. gw juga bingung kenapa guru biologi gw bahkan menentang evolusi. tapi kemungkinan besar alesannya sih karna ngga terima kita itu kerabat simpanse, tapi kalo gitu kenapa kita megakui bahwa kita itu mammals? paradox jadinya.

next post gw bakal nulis soal miskonsepsi miskonsepsi orang orang tentang evolusi dan di mana letak kesalahannya. hehe latihan sebelum nulis essay buat Stanford. :)

a bit misconception about logic

nah, gw juga baru 'ngeh' nih soal yang satu ini.

soal logika preposisi. pasti banyak juga orang yang ngga terlalu peduli sama hal yang satu ini. tapi efeknya parrah banget loh, bisa mempengaruhi paradigma dalam pengambilan asumsi.

gini.

di buku logic yang gw baca, ada satu hal yang menarik perhatian. ada pertentangan antara Boolean sama Aristotle

misal gw bilang

"semua kucing adalah mamalia", kesimpulannya

"ada kucing yang mamalia"

valid atau invalid?

nah pertentangan antara Boolean sama Aristotle disini. Aristotle bilang statement diatas valid, tapi Boolean bilang statement itu invalid. nah lho. kenapa bisa gitu? ok, liat statement ke 2

"semua unicorn adalah binatang"

"ada unicorn yang binatang"

both Boolean and Aristotle say it is invalid. nah di sini Aristotle ngga konsisten. secara struktur logic kedua statement sama, memang kalo secara fakta beda.

statement pertama emang terlihat valid, karna emang bener, kucing itu mamalia, dan nyatanya emang ada kucing yang mamalia, dan memang, conditionally valid. but, we lack sufficient information about the meaning of the premise to tell which is the case. jadi dua statement di atas sebenernya ngga bisa diambil kesimpulan apa apa.

coba liat statement yang ke2.

semua unicorn adalah binatang, maka ada unicorn yang binatang, nah, emang ada unicorn? itu kan cuma dongeng hehe.

Aristotle standpoint ngga bisa mengatasi preposisi yang "ngga ada" atau do not exist, dia mengadopsi dari hal hal yang ada dan nyata, tapi ngga mencakup preposisi preposisi yang imajiner seperti statement ke2

ini namanya existencial fallacy by the way, it commits when we presuppose that a class has members even when we are not explicitly told so; that is, we assume that the class has existential import

so the conclusion is,

All S are P doesn't not guarantee there is exist a S which is P

--------------------

how about Nothing is impossible? or there is nothing impossible?

the statement means All things are possible isn't it? so that does not guarentee there is exist a thing which is possible, right? haha yes, it is right, with condition that nothing is a kind of matter. or kind of 'thing'

it's just another of my freaky thoughts :P

Sekolah itu lembaga pedidikan, bukan pengajaran

ENJOY LOGIC AND EDUCATION!

A little thing about Einstein

I’m gonna tell you about Einstein; and peoples are mistakenly thinking about his religious view.
First, you would think that he is religious –precisely he believes in God— because of his famous quote “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind”.

I was.
Einstein sometimes invoked the name of God, inviting misunderstanding by supernaturalist eager to misunderstand and claim so illustrious a thinker as their own. Then it has led people to believe, mistakenly of course, that Einstein as a religious man.

And Einstein also said “it was, of course, a lie without read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”

But it doesn’t mean that Einstein contradict himself. His word is a bit tricky. By ‘religion’ Einstein meant something entirely different from its conventionally meant.

Here are some more quotations from Einstein that would your paradigm about him, to give a flavor of Einsteinian religion

I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is somewhat a new kind of religion

I have never imputed to nature a purpose or goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in nature is a magnificent that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do without mysticism.

And he also said, God doesn’t play a dice
It should be translated like this “randomness does not lie at the heart of all things”

Did God have a choice in creating universe? “could universe have begun in any other way?”

Einstein was using God in a purely metaphorical, poetic science.

Ah ya, I heard some gossips that Einstein was admitted that he believe in God in the end of his life. All I know, he was at the hospital in Princeton. Before he dead, he said something in germany to the nurse –and she doesn’t speak German. It may be “I do believe in God blablabla” or “oh forgot to take the laundry”

No one knows

So what do you think?


I have no purpose writing this. I just don’t like to see any misconception around me. That’s it

Have a nice day!