Bikes have no windows and can move. There doesn’t seem to be any correlation whatsoever. Fascinating
By that logic it’s the wheels that make both the car and the bike move.
Which isn’t…entirely wrong, but I wouldn’t say it’s correct.
I know! Let’s try putting wheels on a house
You invented RV’s.
Which can move! Ho-ly shit. There might be something to this “wheel.”
Tell that to rats and gerbils.
… Those things move all the time
And are stationary at the same time. 😉
… without wheels. Wheel theory once and for all debunked by a proponent. How ironic
Perhaps the wheels charge them tho
No, literal houses.
Sometimes the windows need just a little bit of help.
You’re on to something. Boats have steering wheels and they can indeed move.
But what of the mysterious seaplane?
It still has cogwheels.
I didn’t say it’s wheels and it doesn’t even make sense once you think about it. Wheels are connected to the ground. Moving is all about getting to another ground. If anything, wheels hold you back.
I bet you’re fun at parties
With people who share my sense of humor
What if bikes DO have windows, but every time you’ve seen a bike, the windows were just rolled down?
That would change everything
Edit: it’s also unfalsifiable which doesn’t make it wrong but you should bear it in mind
Bicycles is my favorite greek philosopher
Ducks have wings and can fly. Ostriches have wings and can’t fly. So it’s not the wings that make the ducks fly, it’s something else entirely.
This is what ancient greek philosophy is like
Deep thoughts.
Perfect example on why the reasoning in the OP is rubbish, even if reaching the right conclusion.
An appropriate deduction might be “Cars have windows and can move, houses have windows and cannot move. The presence of windows alone is not what allows the car to move.”
Ah, but youre still making unreasonable assumptions that the house can’t move. Perhaps the house just chooses not to move.
A fair point - here’s a generalisation. W denotes windows, M the ability to move, a and b are two objects for which their possession of windows and ability to move (or otherwise) is known, and x is some other object.
(W(a) ^ W(b)) ^ (M(a) ^ ¬M(b)) -> ¬(W(x) -> M(x))
That works better; the conclusion is practically useless due to the amount of combinations that wouldn’t allow the car to move, but at least it’s reliable.
Going past that would require messing around with things that don’t move until they do, or vice versa. Also known as science.
Previously known as natural philosophy
Not quite. Natural philosophy is important for science, but on itself it lacks a key element - testing things.
(Note that simply trying to deduce how nature works, like the Greek philosophers did, was already natural philosophy. It isn’t science though.)
That sounds plausible but is, in fact, kinda a made up distinction you just came up with. People up to and including Isaac Newton used the phrase ‘natural philosophy’ to describe what they were doing. ‘Testing’ in any meaningful sense of the word was a part of that more often than not. Even Pythagorean astronomy was implicitly testing things by making predictions of the movement of celestial bodies. So, no, but thanks.
Edit: also worthwhile, I feel, mentioning that a lot of good science is purely observational and involves no direct testing, even of theorems. E.g early paleontology would, I feel, fit into that theme
You’re mincing words to not acknowledge the blatant qualitative difference between what those Greek philosophers were doing under the label “natural philosophy”, versus what people past Bacon (exemplified in your comment by Newton) were doing.
And, as a result, your comment boils down to an “ackshyually” leading to a clearly idiotic conclusion.
Even Pythagorean astronomy was implicitly testing
Emphasis mine. Doing it “implicitly” doesn’t cut it out; this shit needs to be explicit and systematic. You need to take the bloody window off the car and see if it still moves, then take off the lights, so goes on.
Even when direct experimentation is not possible due to the nature of the subject, you need to formulate a bunch of alternative explanations and find a way to sort them out. i.e. explicitly test shit.
And this is so fucking obvious that I’m not wasting my time further with you. If you’re so blatantly ignorant on the scientific method, Wikipedia is a good start.
All I know is that the ocean can’t fly and geese come from barnacles, so it’s not the ocean that makes geese fly.
Then Diogenes comes rolling through in an RV.
“Behold, a house!”
I’m picturing “Honest Diogenes’ Used RV Dealership.”
PLATO: An automobile is craft with an internal combustion engine, crankshaft, and wheels.
DIOGENES wheels in a HONDA GX630 PRESSURE WASHER
DIOGENES: Behold! An automobile!
Wouldn’t Plato say that it is merely what we perceive to be a craft with an internal combustion engine, crankshaft, and wheels?
Perhaps his stident, Aristotle?
SOCRATES: What’s a what, now?
My computer has windows and can fly
Mine has Windows and it’s a piece of shit.
I’d like to recommend you to get some GNU Linux™️ with antiviral formula, it wipes windows in seconds!
Well, technically, downwards still counts as flight
I (pretend to) use Arch, by the way
You mean the toasters can fly.
In Soviet Russia houses move with YOU.
These projects are awesome! IIRC they swiveled an entire building whilst still in use somewhere in America (Maybe NYC?). Without interrupting plumbing and electricity.
Edit: Found it, it was in Indiana: Indiana Bell building
How?
And why?
I did some research and it was because it was a telecom building that could not have any downtime and they wanted a new bigger building to be built that happened to overlap the original building’s footprint.
Behold a man!
You don’t know that houses can’t move. Absence of a proof does not imply impossibility.
Sounds ridiculous (esp. for windows / houses) but I think it actually shows where Occam’s Razor comes to the rescue: When deciding what to believe, you should consider how many assumptions either model of the world would have to include in order to explain your observations.
Turns you don’t need to look for indisputable mathematically rigorous proofs, you just need to find the best model.
All houses can move, if enough wind is blowing
Therefore it is wind that makes cars go.
Sometimes houses move because of wind, sometimes they move because of earth quakes. There’s gotta be a common element, x, between wind and earth quakes that this can be reduced to, so that we can say “cars and houses move because of x”.
Sometimes houses move because they’ve been loaded onto or built as a part of a vehicle.
Boats often have windows.
Not always…
… But, if a boat does have windows, its more likely one can actually live in it as compared to a boat without windows.
But, some boats with windows cannot really move under their own power, though many can.
But also many boats without windows can also move.
But not all of them.
lol
Yes. But how many boats have wheels?
Someone’s never read any Mark Twain.
kinky
Well that depends on whether or not you consider a BTR a boat. Or a WaterCar. Or an Amfibus. Or a DUKW or a LARC-V.
Or whether or not the boat has a helm.
The.motive force of an object cannot be attributed to the windows
No, that can only be attributed to the great Omnissiah.
Greek algebra, a truth is only true if all other examples of the truth are proven true. Or one can be a part of the whole but the whole isn’t exactly the same as one.
Houses have windows and can’t move
Trailer parks are literally full of houses that can move.
… that could move, once upon a time.
And they can once again, call the toll free number and with a simple donation of kr 99,99 we can get these old trailers moving again.
Trailers are still cars. Here are houses that can move:
How many different ways can you post these?
In many enough.
House windows and car windows differ a lot both in shape and in materials used. Should they even be called the same just because they can be looked out of? There might still be a chance that the obviously very specialized car windows do make the car go.
So it’s the window—that is, the open space within the car which has the fuel cap on one side and exhaust pipe on the other—what makes it run.
Edit: Please don’t try to make house run by pouring gas into one of its window.
Yeah, you need to find the fuel cap!
I’ve heard from this community that houses can run on Linux, though.
People post this like the conclusion isn’t absolutely correct.
Sounds like a religion and a god of the gaps concept.
It reads to me like deductive reasoning.
