Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 10:41 AM
41 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,004 Year: 9,040/19,786 Month: 1,462/2,119 Week: 222/576 Day: 25/98 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
Author Topic:   Swinging of arms
Sowmya
Junior Member (Idle past 4271 days)
Posts: 3
Joined: 06-25-2007


Message 16 of 19 (409399)
07-09-2007 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Karthikeyan
07-09-2007 9:39 AM


Re: Quadrupeds
But isn't walking simply a slower version of runnning? Except for the fact that when we walk, we stay in contact with the ground more, there's not much of a difference, except in speed. And we might not swing our arms as much, because we don't need to be as balanced for walking than running.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Karthikeyan, posted 07-09-2007 9:39 AM Karthikeyan has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-09-2007 3:42 PM Sowmya has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 19 (409466)
07-09-2007 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Sowmya
07-09-2007 10:25 AM


Re: Quadrupeds
But isn't walking simply a slower version of runnning? Except for the fact that when we walk, we stay in contact with the ground more, there's not much of a difference, except in speed.

Nope.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Sowmya, posted 07-09-2007 10:25 AM Sowmya has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Sowmya, posted 07-09-2007 3:48 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Sowmya
Junior Member (Idle past 4271 days)
Posts: 3
Joined: 06-25-2007


Message 18 of 19 (409467)
07-09-2007 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by New Cat's Eye
07-09-2007 3:42 PM


Re: Quadrupeds
So what? Just because the body carries itself differently when walking as opposed to running, it doesn't mean that balance is not required for walking. Obviously when you're running, you have to propel yourself forward and it is likely that different muscles work differently to do that, but in terms of balance, you need your arms swinging in both walking and running.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-09-2007 3:42 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-09-2007 5:08 PM Sowmya has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 19 (409475)
07-09-2007 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Sowmya
07-09-2007 3:48 PM


just pointing out your illogic (no offense)
Let’s review the argument:

Sowmya writes:

ME writes:

Sowmya writes:

Karthikeyan writes:

Other quadrupeds have that synchroniztion maybe because they don't exhibit erect-stance..and likely to lose balance if they move left fore-limb, left hind-limb together...
In humans, that too while walking I don't see that balance coming into the picture..While running, it may help in balancing..as you tend to move your upper body in front...

But isn't walking simply a slower version of runnning? Except for the fact that when we walk, we stay in contact with the ground more, there's not much of a difference, except in speed. And we might not swing our arms as much, because we don't need to be as balanced for walking than running.

Nope.

So what? Just because the body carries itself differently when walking as opposed to running, it doesn't mean that balance is not required for walking. Obviously when you're running, you have to propel yourself forward and it is likely that different muscles work differently to do that, but in terms of balance, you need your arms swinging in both walking and running.

He says that arm swinging is necessary for running but not for walking. You say that arm swinging is necessary for walking because walking is the same as running. I’m saying that walking is not the same as running. Then you say that them being different doesn’t mean that arm swinging is not necessary for walking.

So what?

So, you’re logic is incorrect.

Let A=running, B=walking, and P=swinging arms for balance.
He says A=P and B!=P {{B does not equal P}}
You say that A=B --> B=P.
I say that A!=B.
Then you say (A!=B !--> B!=P) --> B=P {{You say that A not being equal to B does not imply that B does not equal P, therefore B equals P}}

Your conclusion does not follow from the premises. Your argument is not valid.

Of course, this has nothing to do with the truth of the conclusion and I happen to think that you swing your arms for balance when you walk.

But look what he said:

Karthikeyan writes:

In humans, that too while walking I don't see that balance coming into the picture

You need to show that B=P. The way you tried to show it was based on the false premise that A=B. And now that I’ve proven that A!=B, you’re using an invalid argument to come to the same conclusion. But you still haven’t shown that B=P.

Make sense?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Sowmya, posted 07-09-2007 3:48 PM Sowmya has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019