If I know people might not want to see this and this might tank makes sense to have it separate.
(from here danger zone whether this is constructive enough to write)
Previous opening of the reason why the examples were found not to be instances pattern matches for me to:
Why infactuation? Well, it could be Z, X, Y. Z is based on negative addiction. X is based on negative addiction. Y is based on negative addiction. Infactuation seems to be based on negative addiction
Well what about if it was A, B or C? As is it is an argument from lack of imagination. It needs a reason why the reasons would be exhaustive to leave that territority.
Probably should have just taken small steps previously but here I am explicating. “A” could be that student is having an ordinary balanced life and first love hits. The style of rejection seems that this would be taken with a pattern of : Well the students previous life must have been so negative if addiction can be upkept. If ordinary life counts as “negative life” I am wondering what words “neutral” and “positive” are supposed to mean. (occurred why the special character for the search, mechanism is based on contrast and contrast always has duality (negative and positive here) ). No argument about specific things that could suck in a students life. If the fact that life has downs is obvious enough to just ambiently assume then recognising that it also has ups should not be far. Another pattern of “it can be needing the risk not to happen and that is negative addiction.” closing a branch of inquiry of the type “it can be, therefore it must be”. ∃x=¬∀¬x negates as ¬∃x=∀¬x rather than ¬∃x≠p(¬x)>90%. Sure, if one is searching an efficient or wide solution to the problem inductive reasoning that cares about cogency makes sense. But if one is wondering whether an edge cases exists having a stance that “that is not an edge case as it is rare” is not exactly enlightening. (assuming that approach is first to find the edgecases to estimate then whether their empirical frequency warrants analysis or inclusion).
If I know people might not want to see this and this might tank makes sense to have it separate.
(from here danger zone whether this is constructive enough to write)
Previous opening of the reason why the examples were found not to be instances pattern matches for me to:
Well what about if it was A, B or C? As is it is an argument from lack of imagination. It needs a reason why the reasons would be exhaustive to leave that territority.
Probably should have just taken small steps previously but here I am explicating. “A” could be that student is having an ordinary balanced life and first love hits. The style of rejection seems that this would be taken with a pattern of : Well the students previous life must have been so negative if addiction can be upkept. If ordinary life counts as “negative life” I am wondering what words “neutral” and “positive” are supposed to mean. (occurred why the special character for the search, mechanism is based on contrast and contrast always has duality (negative and positive here) ). No argument about specific things that could suck in a students life. If the fact that life has downs is obvious enough to just ambiently assume then recognising that it also has ups should not be far. Another pattern of “it can be needing the risk not to happen and that is negative addiction.” closing a branch of inquiry of the type “it can be, therefore it must be”. ∃x=¬∀¬x negates as ¬∃x=∀¬x rather than ¬∃x≠p(¬x)>90%. Sure, if one is searching an efficient or wide solution to the problem inductive reasoning that cares about cogency makes sense. But if one is wondering whether an edge cases exists having a stance that “that is not an edge case as it is rare” is not exactly enlightening. (assuming that approach is first to find the edgecases to estimate then whether their empirical frequency warrants analysis or inclusion).