Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Just a question...
itrownot
Member (Idle past 5997 days)
Posts: 71
Joined: 10-15-2007


Message 174 of 199 (430661)
10-26-2007 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by crashfrog
10-26-2007 3:06 PM


Re: Confirmation Bias
crashfrog, my point to you is rather simple. Reiterating my comment to rahvin (Message 169): It is NOT "always easier to fool yourself"--anyone who has fooled someone at some time or other knows that by simple inspection. Am I being a nitpicker? Of course--that's what we do here in order to understand one another.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by crashfrog, posted 10-26-2007 3:06 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by crashfrog, posted 10-26-2007 3:21 PM itrownot has replied
 Message 177 by Rahvin, posted 10-26-2007 5:12 PM itrownot has replied

  
itrownot
Member (Idle past 5997 days)
Posts: 71
Joined: 10-15-2007


Message 178 of 199 (430682)
10-26-2007 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by crashfrog
10-26-2007 3:21 PM


Re: Confirmation Bias
So, if I happen to fool you into thinking there's a spider crawling up your sleeve, then it would have been easier, according to your loosely formulated logic, for me to fool myself into thinking there's a spider crawling up your sleeve. This is in effect what you are saying when you say "ALWAYS easier." Yours was a preposterous statement unless given to be understood within a specific context. That's exactly what I was contending about my past statement concerning my use of the word "empirical"--I was using the term "empirical" more generally as a word and in a particular context, but nobody could accept that. Now you want me to accept your use of the term "fact" outside of its strict meaning as a term.
You refuse to admit the obvious mistake, perhaps because it's embarassing for your argument's sake, so you keep dancing around it in a vain effort to justify it. Oh, well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by crashfrog, posted 10-26-2007 3:21 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by crashfrog, posted 10-26-2007 5:40 PM itrownot has not replied
 Message 180 by Rahvin, posted 10-26-2007 7:20 PM itrownot has not replied

  
itrownot
Member (Idle past 5997 days)
Posts: 71
Joined: 10-15-2007


Message 181 of 199 (430697)
10-26-2007 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by sidelined
10-26-2007 5:10 PM


Re: Confirmation Bias
you seem to be missing the point, sidelined. It's not about Feynmen's quote, per se, it's about crashfrog's quote, in which he inserts the word "always" (as in, "you are ALWAYS the easiest person to fool"). The statement is NOT TRUE, scientifically speaking, as I demonstrated to crashfrog in Message 178. He has committed a minor error in critical thinking, that's all, but he's hung up on it, for, you see, Crashfrog is still struggling to justify his error--he simply cannot admit to a simple mistake, and several other posters are now carrying in the water for him, acting as if the stakes are high on the outcome of it. lol For example, he now says: "To the contrary. Just because it's possible to fool another person doesn't mean that one can't be fooled, oneself." This statement proves nothing, as I NEVER SAID anything of the kind--he's only reaching at this point, apparently to avoid the embarrassment he feels in being wrong, even on so minor a point.
Edited by itrownot, : edited for clarity & lol
Edited by itrownot, : example added

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by sidelined, posted 10-26-2007 5:10 PM sidelined has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Chiroptera, posted 10-26-2007 8:32 PM itrownot has replied
 Message 185 by crashfrog, posted 10-27-2007 1:00 AM itrownot has not replied
 Message 186 by anglagard, posted 10-27-2007 3:29 AM itrownot has not replied

  
itrownot
Member (Idle past 5997 days)
Posts: 71
Joined: 10-15-2007


Message 183 of 199 (430701)
10-26-2007 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Chiroptera
10-26-2007 8:32 PM


Re: The return of the black pot.
sorry, chiro--I didn't edit my last post (i.e. Message 181) in time to make the point clear as to why any of us are SO hung up on this minor point. Reread it and weep, black pot. lol
Edited by itrownot, : edited for clarity
Edited by itrownot, : edited for clarity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Chiroptera, posted 10-26-2007 8:32 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Chiroptera, posted 10-27-2007 1:32 PM itrownot has not replied

  
itrownot
Member (Idle past 5997 days)
Posts: 71
Joined: 10-15-2007


Message 184 of 199 (430708)
10-26-2007 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Rahvin
10-26-2007 5:12 PM


Re: Confirmation Bias
Rahvin quote:
"Do you see why Crash get's to use the word "fact," and you get to use the word "anecdote?""
That's pretty funny, rahvin. I've already stated why "Crash get's to use the word "fact"" and I don't--it's cuz he's in the same club as rahvin and others who'll carry his water for him.
I chose the word "anecdotal" because I knew that certain words are appropriate and others are not. You're really only making my case, rahvin, 'cause that's more than Crashfrog can say at this point (excepting of course that he has special license to say what he wants so long as so many others will defend his illogical statements to the bitter end--which is why we're STILL hung up on this, just in case sidelined isn't paying attention again.) My "anecdote" was only what it was, and it was an honest one, so far as that goes.
BTW, perhaps you are unfamiliar with the term "inspection"--we say "by inspection" to signify formally that a proof of an assertion is self-evident, and therefore unnecessary. It has nothing to do with "common knowledge" per se.
oh, PS, rahvin--here's a new fallacy to be considered: proof by consensus majority.
Edited by itrownot, : PS added

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Rahvin, posted 10-26-2007 5:12 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024