Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Nature of Scepticism
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 256 of 271 (717456)
01-27-2014 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Stile
01-27-2014 2:30 PM


Re: "Wrong" does not equal "opinion"
This is the issue. This statement can be taken 2 different ways, and they're both wrong.
Or it can be taken a third way: the two observations (1 - boy, 2 - hunter) are not concurrent so both observations could be true (looked at with an open mind), and - with skepticism applied - both could be false or either one could be true and the other false: you don't know.
... "The evidence being indicative of reality" could be taken to reference the future observation. The objective conclusion: that based upon this single observation... when the boy cries wolf again, then there will be no wolf at that time ...
The probability of a future observation not being validated by another (also non-concurrent) observation needs to be balanced by the probability of an actual wolf attack regardless of the boys behavior. Is the wolf disappearing when the alarm is sounded?
But it's absolutely wrong to say it's "based on opionion/bias belief" because it's not. It's based on the one objective, verified observation.
And more to the point, on the assumption\belief that it will happen in the same way again. An assumption that is not questioned skeptically.
This makes it an objective conclusion.
Not a very confident (good) one... but one all the same.
That lack of confidence should be a big red flag for anyone claiming a skeptical approach to the issue.
And no matter how many times you say this you are still missing that one of your precepts is opinion\assumption\belief and not an objective fact but a guess, and that any conclusion based on it is a leap to a conclusion not fully supported by the evidence.
1 + x = 2 only works if you assume x = 1 and not any other number, no matter how solid you think the 1 is in the equation.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Stile, posted 01-27-2014 2:30 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Stile, posted 01-28-2014 10:52 AM RAZD has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 257 of 271 (717490)
01-28-2014 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by Stile
01-27-2014 2:30 PM


Re: "Wrong" does not equal "opinion"
I think I've found your guys' disconnect.
However, if we did conclude that when the boy cries wolf again, then there will be no wolf... this is not "based on opinion/bias/belief."
It is based on objective evidence... the one observation.
It's highly likely to be wrong... and there's a very low level of confidence in the conclusion.
Accepting a low-confidence, and highly likely to be wrong, conclusion doesn't sound like skepticism to me, even if it is based on objective evidence.
And for that, I agree with RAZD that you might as well just wait to accept a conclusion and get more data instead.
But it's absolutely wrong to say it's "based on opionion/bias belief" because it's not. It's based on the one objective, verified observation.
This makes it an objective conclusion.
Not a very confident (good) one... but one all the same.
In this case, you've defined your conclusion into being an objective one.
RAZD's claim of opinion/bias stems from:
quote:
the assumption that the evidence you have is indicative of reality.
Now, in your scenario you've got:
quote:
The boy cries wolf... the village expert wolf-hunters checked and concluded that there was no wolf.
...
that's what the village experts are for... to corroborate and validate the observation that there is no wolf.
You've set up your scenario so that the expert are 100% correct and that we know that there was no wolf there when the boy cried.
In that particular scenario, sure, I agree you have an objective conclusion (you've defined into being one).
But in the real world, we don't ever have that 100% confidence.
So in that sense, your "objective" conclusion is still based on the assumption that the evidence you have is indicative of reality.
In real life, how do you know the experts were right? Would you really call the boy a liar based on just one data point?
Wouldn't a skeptical approach wait until there was more confidence in the conclusion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Stile, posted 01-27-2014 2:30 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Stile, posted 01-28-2014 11:18 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 258 of 271 (717506)
01-28-2014 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by RAZD
01-27-2014 5:39 PM


Re: "Wrong" does not equal "opinion"
RAZD writes:
Or it can be taken a third way: the two observations (1 - boy, 2 - hunter) are not concurrent so both observations could be true (looked at with an open mind), and - with skepticism applied - both could be false or either one could be true and the other false: you don't know.
...
The probability of a future observation not being validated by another (also non-concurrent) observation needs to be balanced by the probability of an actual wolf attack regardless of the boys behavior. Is the wolf disappearing when the alarm is sounded?
We've dealt with this already, remember? Back from Message 239:
quote:
that's not the point of this example.
What if the hunters are right there, just resting with their eyes closed? All they have to do is open their eyes, immediately, as soon as they boy cries wolf.
I am not trying to complicate things, I'm trying to make them simple. Once we agree on a simple example (if such a thing is possible), then we can add complications and move on from there. Doesn't that seem fair?
Why do you feel the need to add the possibility of extra information that complicates the example?
The point is to provide a simple example and deal with the information at hand.
I agree that *if* we're going to add more information (more possibilities to my hand-crafted example) then yes, there would be more things to consider. This is rather obvious.
However, this example is specifically chosen to be simple and not have to worry about such extra concerns.
RAZD writes:
Stile writes:
But it's absolutely wrong to say it's "based on opionion/bias belief" because it's not. It's based on the one objective, verified observation.
And more to the point, on the assumption\belief that it will happen in the same way again. An assumption that is not questioned skeptically.
You seem to be jumping ahead now.
I am not claiming to have the assumption\belief that the scenario will happen in the same way again.
I agree with you in this context:
  • The objective, verified conclusion exists (based on the one objective, verified observation)... that if the scenario occurs again in the future, then the boy will be incorrect and there will be no wolf again.
  • It is a personal choice (opinion... belief... whatever) if you are going to accept the objective conclusion or not.
And, of course... this context exists with all objective conclusions.
Even our current theories of gravity and planetary motion... things that have been tested and verified and are as objective as any information we currently have available to us. Even these theories include the same two components:
  • The objective, verified conclusion exists (here there would be thousands, possibly even millions of objective observations to base it on).
  • It is a personal choice (opinion... belief... whatever) if you are going to accept the objective conclusion or not.
RAZD writes:
And no matter how many times you say this you are still missing that one of your precepts is opinion\assumption\belief and not an objective fact but a guess, and that any conclusion based on it is a leap to a conclusion not fully supported by the evidence.
You seem to imply that this inclusion of opinion is a bad thing... but it exists with *all* objective conclusions. It's always a personal choice in deciding when something has "enough evidence" to be considered a personally "valid" conclusion. This opinion aspect has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that the objective evidence exists and the objective conclusion exists.
When there are "few" objective observations, it's a personal choice ("opinion") that the objective conclusion is not a very good one ("big red flag").
When there are "many" objective observations, it's a personal choice ("opinion") that the objective conclusion is a good one ("very confident").
The opinion part is always there, you can never get away with it in any observations of reality unless we gain the ability to make observations of the future. Or if we get to set the original axioms of the scenario (like in math).
Any conclusions about future observations are *always* opinion/personal choice. You can choose to accept what the objective evidence is pointing towards ("follow the evidence") or you can choose to accept your own idea.
You seem to keep identifying this part of the "opinion" in the scientific method... but ascribing it to the objective data... calling the objective conclusion itself "an opinion." The objective conclusion is never an opinion... that's why it's "objective"... because it's based on the objective information that is available.
You are right, however, that the "opinion" exists in choosing to side with the objective evidence or not. But this part of "opinion" is present in *all* scientific theories/conclusions/laws.
RAZD writes:
Stile writes:
This makes it an objective conclusion.
Not a very confident (good) one... but one all the same.
That lack of confidence should be a big red flag for anyone claiming a skeptical approach to the issue.
Exactly. That's what I've said: "Not a very confident (good) one" = "a big red flag."
The point you seem to be missing (or, at least... not actually saying you agree with me while arguing other extraneous notions...) is that the objective, validated conclusion is still there... it's (as always) just our personal choice that tells us the one observation is not enough to have confidence in that conclusion.
1 + x = 2 only works if you assume x = 1 and not any other number, no matter how solid you think the 1 is in the equation.
I don't understand the point you're trying to make here.
"no matter how solid you think the 1 is in the equation"... is referring to which "1"? The constant or the "x-variable"?
When dealing with math, we are the ones who constructed the axioms and, actually, no assumptions are necessary. We can prove definitively that (in this equation) x = 1. This only depends on our original axioms (base 10, real number system... blah, blah, blah...).
I agree that we can only assume that x = 1 if we don't know who created the equation and what axioms they based it on originally.
This is the thing with reality... we don't know who (or what) created the universe and what axioms the universe is based on originally.
Therefore... all our conclusions are always "assumed" (opinion, belief, whatever...).
However, based on objective evidence... we can choose to "assume" that the objective conclusion is going to be correct again... depending on how many objective observations it's based on.
This is how science works.
Not so much like this (your system):
question
                  |
      is there sufficient valid
   information available to decide
     |                      |
    yes                     no
     |                      |
decide based            is a decision
on empirical            (1) necessary or
valid evidence          (2) not necessary?
=logical                   /          \
conclusion               (1)          (2) ... but ... ?
   (A)                  /              |              |
                decide             decision        make a
                based on           not required    decision
                inadequate         = abstain       anyway
                evidence              (C)          based on
                = guess                            inadequate
                  (B)                              evidence
                                                   = opinion ?
                                                      (D)
But more like this (very similar, just a bit different):
Possible Personal Choices for any Question
                           |
       is there objective information available?
          /                               \
        yes                                no
         |                                 |
does the amount of                         |
evidence make me feel                      |
(1) confident or                           |
(2) not confident or                       |
(3) unsure                                 |
    |              \          \___________
   (1)              (2)                   (3)
    |                |                       \
choose to        choose to               can you wait for more
accept the       go against              information?
objective        the objective          /               \
conclusion       conclusion          yes                 no
="follow the     = guess              |                  |
  evidence"         (B)          decision not     forced to choose
    (A)                          required         (1) or (2) based
                                 = abstain        on past experiencs
                                     (C)
The choice of 1, 2 or 3 is opinion... always. But if objective evidence exists... then the objective conclusion also exists. It's only our opinion to decide to follow the evidence or not. Usually we do this based on there being "enough" observations. But how many "enough" is will be different for everyone... because that portion is an opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2014 5:39 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by RAZD, posted 01-28-2014 2:30 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 259 of 271 (717509)
01-28-2014 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by New Cat's Eye
01-28-2014 10:10 AM


Re: "Wrong" does not equal "opinion"
Catholic Scientist writes:
Accepting a low-confidence, and highly likely to be wrong, conclusion doesn't sound like skepticism to me, even if it is based on objective evidence.
And for that, I agree with RAZD that you might as well just wait to accept a conclusion and get more data instead.
Actually, I've stated that I agree with RAZDs final decision in this case as well.
My point is to show the separation between "the objective conclusion" and "the choice to accept the objective conclusion."
You've set up your scenario so that the experts are 100% correct and that we know that there was no wolf there when the boy cried.
Not quite.
I've set up my scenario such that the experts are 100% objective...
There is a difference between being objective and being correct.
It may be entirely, 100% objective that the experts did all their searching and all their looking and never found the wolf.
You can repeat this a million times with a billion experts, if you'd like.
This doesn't make it correct in any way. They all could have missed the wolf for one reason or another.
"Objective" does not equal "correct." Regardless of there being 1 objective observation or a zillion-kajillion.
In that particular scenario, sure, I agree you have an objective conclusion (you've defined into being one).
The only reason it's an objective conclusion is because it is derived from the objective observations.
This is not "defining it into one." This is simply "agreeing with what the word objective actually means in the first place."
But in the real world, we don't ever have that 100% confidence.
So in that sense, your "objective" conclusion is still based on the assumption that the evidence you have is indicative of reality.
This is the issue.
You are correct that we don't ever have 100% confidence.
The objective conclusion is not based on the assumption that the evidence we have is indicative of reality.
The objective conclusion exists as long as objective evidence exists (no matter how much).
It is, however, personal opinion that the objective conclusion (whatever it is) is a confident one and one we should choose to accept.
This personal opinion is generally (logically?) based on the number of objective observations.
So in that sense, your "objective" conclusion is still based on the assumption that the evidence you have is indicative of reality.
The thing is, this is not only true "in that sense" but it is true "in all senses."
This statement is true all the time.
Regardless of whether or not we have 1 observation of the wolf not being present... or if we have a million observations of the wolf not being present.
Regardless of whether or not we have 1 observation of gravity and planetary motion being correct... or if we have a million observations of gravity and planetary motion being correct.
*** this sentence is wrong *** There is never an "objective conclusion that is based on the assumption that the evidence we have is indicative of reality."
*** supposed to say something like this *** There is never a time where we can make this comparison. The assumption (or something similar) has to be made all the time. Because we don't have an objective measuring device for "reality." We don't know the axioms. We can't see the future... all that stuff.
The objective conclusion is only ever based on the objective evidence.
We can never, ever know that any observation or any amount of observations is "indicative of reality" (future tense) because we can't observe the future.
The decision of whether or not the objective conclusion is going to help us predict the future is always an opinion. (Usually logically based on the number of observations... the "weight" of the evidence.)
That's why science is "tested all the time"... because we don't know if future observations are suddenly going to show us that Newton's laws are completely useless now... or if V no longer equals IR.
Science is "tested all the time... on every single future observation" because we don't know the future... because the objective conclusion is never "indicative of reality." It's only based on the objective observations of the past.
In real life, how do you know the experts were right?
Can't. Ever. No matter how many experts.. no matter how many observations.. not even if you do it yourself.
We don't have a "meter stick of reality" in order to measure "objectivity" with.
Would you really call the boy a liar based on just one data point?
Nope. I'd wait for more information.
However... this doesn't make the objective evidence we do have go away.
What I'm doing here is going against the evidence. My reason for going against the evidence is because there's not enough of it to be confident in it's objective conclusion. The objective conclusion is there just fine... derived from the evidence we have. It's a personal choice whether or not to accept that evidence.
Wouldn't a skeptical approach wait until there was more confidence in the conclusion?
Yes, of course.
My point is that this doesn't mean it's "an opinion" that the objective conclusion is that when the boy cries wolf... then there is no wolf.
That is not an opinion.... that's the objective conclusion.
We are choosing (an opinion in itself) not to accept the objective conclusion because there is only 1 objective observation... and therefore there's not much confidence in it. However... none of this turns the objective conclusion into an opinion itself... that's a bit insane.
This then leads into the next question (if we can ever get past this simple example...).
How many objective observations are required to label something as "enough" to make following the evidence a confident choice?
(I think the answer to this is all that sigma-5 statistical analysis math stuff... but even then, you have to have an "opinion" if you want 95% accuracy or 99% accuracy or whatever...)
Edited by Stile, : Wrote something really confusing. Fixed it in a way that's... even more confusing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-28-2014 10:10 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-28-2014 3:45 PM Stile has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 260 of 271 (717526)
01-28-2014 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Stile
01-28-2014 10:52 AM


still missing the point
Why do you feel the need to add the possibility of extra information that complicates the example?
The point is to provide a simple example and deal with the information at hand.
Simple to the point of being pointless?
Do you agree that 1 plus 1 equals 2?
Well it could be 10 in binary ... (Why do you feel the need to add the possibility of extra information that complicates the example?)
1 + x = 2 only works if you assume x = 1 and not any other number, no matter how solid you think the 1 is in the equation.
I don't understand the point you're trying to make here.
"no matter how solid you think the 1 is in the equation"... is referring to which "1"? The constant or the "x-variable"?
1 is the known value and x is the unknown value.
When dealing with math, we are the ones who constructed the axioms and, actually, no assumptions are necessary. We can prove definitively that (in this equation) x = 1. This only depends on our original axioms (base 10, real number system... blah, blah, blah...).
Only when you assume that the equation is true. If x = any other value then the equation is not true.
The purpose of this discussion is to show how a consistent application of skepticism to a question can be rationally pursued. My main point is that frequently skepticism will only be applied to one side of the issue and that the possibility - however small - of an alternative explanation is ignored or dismissed without the one side being assessed skeptically as well.
However, this example is specifically chosen to be simple and not have to worry about such extra concerns.
So what you are saying is that if we reduce the situation to its most ridiculous extreme such that
(a) we absolutely know that the boy cried wolf and
(b) we absolutely know that there is no wolf
that the conclusion
∴ the boy's alarm is absolutely known to be a false positive
is based on objective evidence ... because you have removed any and all elements in need of skepticism from the discussion ...
... that is about how skepticism is applied or misapplied. You reduce it to a pointless semantic juggling of words to arrive at a pedantic point.
The objective, verified conclusion exists (based on the one objective, verified observation). ...
The only valid conclusion is that the one claim of wolf was not validated.
... that if the scenario occurs again in the future, then the boy will be incorrect and there will be no wolf again.
Does not follow from the evidence ... which, curiously, still includes the fact that wolves have been seen and wolves have attacked the sheep ... so all you can rationally conclude is that there may be a wolf and there may not be a wolf but you won't know until you (open Schroedinger's box and) look.
It is a personal choice (opinion... belief... whatever) if you are going to accept the objective conclusion or not.
No it is a matter of being consistently skeptical that is being discussed and you have totally missed where opinion fits into your equations.
It is a matter of being skeptical of the claim that a rational objective conclusion has been reached. It is a matter of reviewing all the evidence that is known and seeing if there is sufficient to form a valid conclusion.
The objective, verified conclusion exists (based on the one objective, verified observation). ... that if the scenario occurs again in the future, then the boy will be incorrect and there will be no wolf again.
Labeling this as a verified objective evidence based conclusion in your premise means that you have included your conclusion in the premise -- a logical fallacy called begging the question.
This a priori labeling doesn't make it true. The conclusion that a single observation will represent a future observation is not validated by the initial single observation: you can't use the evidence for a premise to validate a conclusion (another problem that bluegenes had btw). This should be blindingly evident:
• observation: person "A" is observed to do action "B"
• hypothesis: person "A" will do action "B" again
• validation: person "A" was already observed once to do action "B"
Really?
And, of course... this context exists with all objective conclusions.
No, you still miss the - to me rather obvious - point that you still need to be skeptical of the conclusion because you are not looking at all the possibilities with the same skepticism but focus on one.
... that if the scenario occurs again in the future, then the boy will be incorrect and there will be no wolf again.
Do you really not see that you have included your opinion\bias\assumption in this already?
Edited by RAZD, : [.]

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Stile, posted 01-28-2014 10:52 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Stile, posted 01-28-2014 4:12 PM RAZD has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 261 of 271 (717531)
01-28-2014 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by Stile
01-28-2014 11:18 AM


Re: "Wrong" does not equal "opinion"
My point is to show the separation between "the objective conclusion" and "the choice to accept the objective conclusion."
Well, you're making sense.
Not quite.
I've set up my scenario such that the experts are 100% objective...
There is a difference between being objective and being correct.
Oh, I thought validating that there is no wolf means that we know, for a fact, that there was no wolf there.
This doesn't make it correct in any way. They all could have missed the wolf for one reason or another.
Then why even have the experts? You could maintain the same thing by just having the villagers see that there's no wolf.
I thought the experts offered us enough confidence to say that there was, in fact, no wolf there when the boy cried it.
That what gives us our objective data point; we know for a fact that there wasn't a wolf when the boy cried.
Not that we can predict the future, but for the instance that occurred, we know there wasn't a wolf when he cried.
"Objective" does not equal "correct." Regardless of there being 1 objective observation or a zillion-kajillion.
Sure, but if we don't know if the experts were correct or not, then we're no better off than just having the villagers.
In that particular scenario, sure, I agree you have an objective conclusion (you've defined into being one).
The only reason it's an objective conclusion is because it is derived from the objective observations.
This is not "defining it into one." This is simply "agreeing with what the word objective actually means in the first place."
Well I thought you were bringing in the wolf experts, as opposed to relying on just the villagers, to eliminate the possibility that there actually was a wolf there but it just wasn't observed. That's why you went so far as the experts sitting there and making the observation immediately after the boy cries.
And with having the experts, that gives us an objective as possible data point that lets us know for a fact that the boy cried wolf when there was not a wolf there.
Given that objective data point, we are allowed to make an objective conclusion that the boy lied (or whatever).
That's what I meant by defining it into objectivity; removing the possibility that the observation was in error.
But in the real world, we don't ever have that 100% confidence.
So in that sense, your "objective" conclusion is still based on the assumption that the evidence you have is indicative of reality.
This is the issue.
You are correct that we don't ever have 100% confidence.
The objective conclusion is not based on the assumption that the evidence we have is indicative of reality.
The objectivity of your observation relies on assuming that the evidence you have is indicative of reality.
That is, when the experts say that there wasn't a wolf there, then there really wasn't a wolf there.
The objective conclusion exists as long as objective evidence exists (no matter how much).
It is, however, personal opinion that the objective conclusion (whatever it is) is a confident one and one we should choose to accept.
This personal opinion is generally (logically?) based on the number of objective observations.
Right. And that's where we get into skepticism.
Just because a conclusion is based on objective evidence, doesn't mean that its worth accepting.
We can never, ever know that any observation or any amount of observations is "indicative of reality" (future tense) because we can't observe the future.
But we can know that for the past tense. In your scenario, we know that when the boy cried wolf there really wasn't a wolf there because the experts were there to validate that there was no wolf.
We then take that objective data point and apply it to the future to come to a conclusion that when the boy cries wolf next time, then there won't be a wolf then either.
As you said, basing that on one data point offers us a very weak conclusion. One that wouldn't be accepted under a skeptical approach.
My point is that this doesn't mean it's "an opinion" that the objective conclusion is that when the boy cries wolf... then there is no wolf.
That is not an opinion.... that's the objective conclusion.
We are choosing (an opinion in itself) not to accept the objective conclusion because there is only 1 objective observation... and therefore there's not much confidence in it. However... none of this turns the objective conclusion into an opinion itself... that's a bit insane.
The opinion comes in when determining whether or not the objective conclusion is true.
And it gets a little blurry, because the word "conclusion" implies that you have actually came to a decision as to whether or not its true. If you didn't think it was true, then you wouldn't have concluded.
Just for fun, lets look at the definition from Merriam Webster (eliminating the definitions that are about coming to an end):
quote:
conclude verb \kən-ˈkld\
: to form or state (an opinion) : to decide (something) after a period of thought or research
concludedconcluding
Full Definition of CONCLUDE
transitive verb
3
a : to reach as a logically necessary end by reasoning : infer on the basis of evidence
b : to make a decision about : decide
c : to come to an agreement on : effect
I find it interesting that they explicitly state that its an opinion. And it seems to suggest that once a conclusion is reached, then you're done with your investigation.
that's the objective conclusion.
Maybe it would be phrased better if said: That what the objective conclusion would be.
That is, if you stopped there and had to decide, then that is a conclusion that you could come to.
But given that were not deciding yet, and were waiting for more data, is it really proper to say that we have a conclusion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Stile, posted 01-28-2014 11:18 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Stile, posted 01-29-2014 9:46 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 262 of 271 (717535)
01-28-2014 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by RAZD
01-28-2014 2:30 PM


Re: still missing the point
RAZD writes:
Only when you assume that the equation is true. If x = any other value then the equation is not true.
Okay, I get your point here.
But you really used a bad example to show it.
Math just doesn't do this.
The "=" sign is a part of the axioms in math... it tells us that it's not "an assumption" that this equation is true... it tells us that the equation is 100% true.
If you're going to redefine the normal axioms of math such that the "=" sign is no longer a 100% indicator that the equation is true... then we're back to what I discussed in my response... that we don't know the axioms for the original situation and therefore cannot derive anything that is "correct" or "indicative of reality" or anything like that... all we can do is make objective observations and then choose to accept the objective conclusion (or not).
So what you are saying is that if we reduce the situation to its most ridiculous extreme such that
(a) we absolutely know that the boy cried wolf and
(b) we absolutely know that there is no wolf
No. This is not what my example is showing. But thank-you for starting to actually engage it and ask questions about it specifically.
My example is only showing that we absolutely know that the observation is objective.
"Objective" does not mean we "absolutely know" anything. If you really think this is what I was aiming for... you're missing the point of the example.
The things you've quoted here are impossible to do in reality... regardless of the number of observations we make... regardless of the number of witnesses we have... regardless of the scenario being about wolves in a forest or gravity or planetary motion or a simple triangle on a piece of paper... it is impossible for us to ever absolutely know anything. Because we do not know the axioms of reality (or if any even exist). We also cannot observe the future.
We are, however, quite capable of making objective observations. There can be 1 objective observation that has been verified (as in my example). Or there can be more. But as long as there's one... we are able to derive an objective conclusion that is based on the objective observation(s). Then, we can choose whether or not to accept this objective conclusion (usually based on the number of objective conclusions). But none of this includes any assumptions.
the boy's alarm is absolutely known to be a false positive
is based on objective evidence
Again, no.
It is impossible to ever "absolutely know" whether or not the boy's alarm is a false positive.
However, it is quite possible to derive a 100% objective conclusion from the 100% objective observation(s) (evidence).
In this example... the unquestionable objective conclusion from the single objective observation is that when the boy cried wolf, there was no wolf.
Are you seriously trying to say that the conclusion "when the boy cried wolf, there was no wolf" cannot be derived from the objective observation that when the boy cried wolf, the expert hunters did not find a wolf? RAZD... that's insane.
because you have removed any and all elements in need of skepticism from the discussion ...
This is also untrue.
Once the objective evidence is identified... we then identify the objective conclusion.
Now we use our skepticism.
Our skepticism tells us that the objective conclusion is a bad one because it's only based on one objective observation.
Therefore... our skeptical conclusion is that we should wait for more information.
However... the objective conclusion still exists... and is not an opinion. We just didn't choose it as our personal conclusion because of our skepticism.
... that is about how skepticism is applied or misapplied. You reduce it to a pointless semantic juggling of words to arrive at a pedantic point.
The point is that your idea of the process requires some fine-tuning.
You see the ridiculousness that one observation cannot lead us to a good conclusion... and you automatically jump to "that's an opinion!!! Objective evidence is never wrong!!!!'
This, however, is absolute bullshit. Objective evidence is wrong all the time in the sense that we'll never know whether or not it is indicative of "absolute reality." It's also wrong a lot of times in practical science... this is when more evidence is found and a theory can be overturned and a new one takes it's place.
Therefore... your gut reaction is wrong.
Just because science is built on overwhelming objective evidence... doesn't mean that objective evidence is always "correct" or "indicative of reality"... that sort of thinking can send us back to the dark ages. All objective evidence shows us is data... this data can be used to create an objective conclusion... we then use our "skepticism" to decide if we should trust in that conclusion (or not).
The only valid conclusion is that the one claim of wolf was not validated.
Why would you say this? What's not validated about having multiple experts make the observation in the first place?
If it makes you feel better.. we can say that there are over a million wolf-hunter experts in this village. Are you trying to say that a million experts agreeing on the same observation does not validate that observation? That's ridiculous.
No, you still miss the - to me rather obvious - point that you still need to be skeptical of the conclusion because you are not looking at all the possibilities with the same skepticism but focus on one.
This is not missed by me.
This is an obvious point that's ongoing all the time. And it is ongoing all the time with everything I've said in this message (and others).
We are always skeptical of the conclusion because their are other possibilities.
-Maybe it's a guess - be skeptical, there may be other possibilities
-Maybe it's an objective conclusion with a few objective observations to back it up - be skeptical, there may be other possibilities
-Maybe it's an objective conclusion with many, many objective observations to back it up - be skeptical, there may be other possibilities
Why would you ever not be skeptical? Only if you ever "absolutely know" anything... which is impossible for our current grasp on reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by RAZD, posted 01-28-2014 2:30 PM RAZD has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 263 of 271 (717573)
01-29-2014 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by New Cat's Eye
01-28-2014 3:45 PM


Re: "Wrong" does not equal "opinion"
Stile writes:
Then why even have the experts? You could maintain the same thing by just having the villagers see that there's no wolf.
Yeah, I can see how that was confusing. I was attempting to stress that the observation "really was" objective and validated. I didn't mean to imply that it was "indisputably accurate of reality."
I was trying to dissuade this sort of rebuttal:
RAZD writes:
The only valid conclusion is that the one claim of wolf was not validated.
Message 260
But that didn't work out, anyway...
Maybe it would be phrased better if said: That what the objective conclusion would be.
I don't like this... because it can imply that the objective conclusion isn't there anymore, or is no longer objective or something like that.
I was thinking of it more like this:
Let's say we have a scenario (any scenario, it doesn't matter).
Sally is a separate entity from us... she makes her own conclusion about what to do.
Joel is a separate entity from us... he makes his own conclusion about what to do.
"The objective evidence" is a separate entity from us... from it, we can all objectively derive what "the objective conclusion" is about what to do.
Now, we have our decision to make... what are we going to do about the scenario?
We can decide to accept Sally's conclusion and do that.
We can decide to accept Joel's conclusion and do that.
We can decide to accept "the objective conclusion" and do that.
Or, we can make up our own conclusion and then do that.
Whatever we decide... it doesn't matter.
Sally's conclusion still exists, Joels conclusion still exists and "the objective conclusion" still exists.
And... "the objective conclusion" is never "an opinion," regardless of whether or not we accept it as our own final action for what-to-do, or for what reasons we use. As it's derived from whatever objective evidence is available for the scenario.
That's what I mean when I say "the objective conclusion" ...a possible objective course-of-action that we may or may not decide to accept.
But given that were not deciding yet, and were waiting for more data, is it really proper to say that we have a conclusion?
I never meant to say that "we have a conclusion" regarding "the objective conclusion."
Even if we decide to wait around for more data... "the objective conclusion" is still there, providing us an option for what to do if we ever wanted to "follow the evidence."
The entire discussion is extremely confusing.
There are many different "mid-points" and aspects. Each with their own area that may be based on evidence or may be an opinion.
It is difficult to parse when someone says "That's an opinion!" Well... what is? That the objective evidence is currently leading in this direction? No, it's not... that's objective. It may very well be opinion to choose to follow the evidence at any given point in time... but that doesn't turn the objective evidence into an opinion at all, regardless of there being 1 objective observation or many.
That's what I'm getting at. From reading RAZDs statements... he seemed to be saying that the conclusion of my example that "there was no wolf when the boy cried wolf" was an opinion. This just isn't true. That's the conclusion that the objective evidence points towards. That's not opinion, that's simply following the evidence.
Although, if he meant to say that if we choose to accept that conclusion... then yes, I agree that the "act of choosing" such a conclusion is indeed an opinion. However... it's not valid to say that "that conclusion" is opinion.
There is a minor difference there... but I think it is significant in the process of science.
I think it's significant to be able to identify that "objective" doesn't mean "always the right choice."
I think it's significant to identify where opinion is specifically used and when it's being mis-labelled.
I think these things are significant because if overly abused... they can lead to corrupt thinking. That is... if someone thinks that our current understanding of planetary motion is "objective"... they are correct. However, if they think that because it is objective then it is a "correct understanding of reality"... then they're just wrong. It's not a correct understanding of reality. It's possible things may change drastically in the future. It's possible our understanding is only "good enough" for the scales we've been looking at and we're missing some minute details that do make a difference in other situations. There are many possibilities that we may learn more in the future and change our current understanding.
I think people understand these concepts... but it can be difficult to see how they apply directly to each and every "objective" situation. But they absolutely do apply to each and every observation of reality we make, and I think it's important enough to clarify. I also think it's why RAZD doesn't understand the mistakes he's making when he talks about bluegenes' argument in their Great Debate... He can't accept that "objective" doesn't mean "correct about reality" because it leads directly into bluegenes' ideas.
Unfortuantely, "objective" has never meant "correct about reality." All it means is we have a bunch of people agreeing on the observation... so we think this gives us confidence that we are onto something. But there's nothing concrete about any of it. Because we don't know enough about reality in order to judge if anything actually is "correct."
Sorry... ranted. This was supposed to be a short, quick reply

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-28-2014 3:45 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-29-2014 10:42 AM Stile has replied
 Message 265 by 1.61803, posted 01-29-2014 11:10 AM Stile has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 264 of 271 (717584)
01-29-2014 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by Stile
01-29-2014 9:46 AM


Re: "Wrong" does not equal "opinion"
Because we don't know enough about reality in order to judge if anything actually is "correct."
That where validation comes into play.
A guy shot a basketball, it fell through the hoop, shook the net, and some points came up on the board.
It is actually correct, in reality, to say that he made the shot. It has been validated by our observations. It has been demonstrated to have occured.
Unfortuantely, "objective" has never meant "correct about reality." All it means is we have a bunch of people agreeing on the observation... so we think this gives us confidence that we are onto something. But there's nothing concrete about any of it.
I think we need to get to the point, in this discussion, where we can say that, yes, this actually exists in reality for real.
That guy hands me his basketball. I take a tape measure and measure its circumference. It comes out to 29.6 inches. I go: "hey Stile, this basketball has a circumference of 29.6 inches." That is objective.
Then I throw you the ball and you measure it with another tape and get the same number. We throw it to a third guy and he does the same. We have validated my observation and we now know that it is correct. I think its fair to say that it really is the correct size of the ball in reality.
Maybe it would be phrased better if said: That what the objective conclusion would be.
I don't like this... because it can imply that the objective conclusion isn't there anymore, or is no longer objective or something like that.
I was thinking of it more like this:
I feel like there needs to be, for the sake of this discussion, some distinction between an objective "conclusion" that nobody has taken yet, and one that has actually been concluded.
But then again, maybe not. Perhaps we should just dilute the definition of objective down to just not being subjective.
An in that case, there's really nothing all that great about being objective, in and of itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Stile, posted 01-29-2014 9:46 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Stile, posted 01-29-2014 12:01 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1503 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


(1)
Message 265 of 271 (717585)
01-29-2014 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by Stile
01-29-2014 9:46 AM


Re: "Wrong" does not equal "opinion"
Hi Stile,
objective conclusion about what to do.
I see it this way: We have a decision to make.
We have a number of possible out comes.
We want to base our decision on the most beneficial out come.
How do we do that?
I am a villiager with sheep in the herd. Up in the distance I hear cries: Wolf! Wolf! Wolf!
What am I going to do?
a) Stay in bed
b) Get up and see whats happening
c) wait for further developments
Each decision has probable out comes
a1) If there is a wolf: I fucked up.
a2) no wolf: I stay warm in bed.
b1) no wolf: I waisted my time.
b2) wolf is there: I can save herd.
c1) no wolf: I stay warm in bed
c2) wolf is there: I fucked up.
Option b is the best option. It's the only option does not allow a fuck up.
Because If I respond and there is no wolf I waisted some time and sleep. However that is a small price to pay considering the alternative that there really is a wolf and I failed* to respond and help save the herd.
Edited by 1.61803, : added *the word failed

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Stile, posted 01-29-2014 9:46 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Modulous, posted 01-29-2014 11:41 AM 1.61803 has replied
 Message 269 by Stile, posted 01-29-2014 12:18 PM 1.61803 has not replied
 Message 270 by Stile, posted 01-29-2014 12:34 PM 1.61803 has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 266 of 271 (717587)
01-29-2014 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by 1.61803
01-29-2014 11:10 AM


investment v return
Option b is the best option. It's the only option does not allow a fuck up.
I disagree. You could be making a social fuck up, allowing your time be dictated by dishonest people. You might be making a survival fuck up - burning all your calories protecting sheep only a small number of which you'll eat.
Because If I respond and there is no wolf I waisted some time and sleep. However that is a small price to pay considering the alternative that there really is a wolf and I failed* to respond and help save the herd.
Are you saying there is no amount of wasted time and sleep which would justify just ignoring the boy as worse than useless? If the boy cried wolf every ten minutes, would you still think it wise to go running every time?
I mean, you have a livelihood too presumably, beyond your communal interest in preserving the sheep, maybe you have cows and fields to attend to. Surely, your time has an actual value? And surely too the flock has only finite value to you? Would it make sense to invest more and more and more of your time in preserving one flock of sheep while your cows went unmilked and your field unharvested? If you felt that strongly about preserving the sheep to the point of physical exhaustion why aren't you just the shepherd, saving you all the time running back and forth!?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by 1.61803, posted 01-29-2014 11:10 AM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by 1.61803, posted 01-29-2014 12:01 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1503 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 267 of 271 (717589)
01-29-2014 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Modulous
01-29-2014 11:41 AM


Re: investment v return
Modulous writes:
You could be making a social fuck up, allowing your time be dictated by dishonest people. You might be making a survival fuck up - burning all your calories protecting sheep only a small number of which you'll eat.
Stick to the diagram please.
Modulous writes:
would you still think it wise to go running every time?
Well if I had the money to install a infrared camera system with wolf alarm we would not be having this conversation would we?
why aren't you just the shepherd, saving you all the time running back and forth!?
Which brings to another old addage: " If you want something done right , do it yourself."

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Modulous, posted 01-29-2014 11:41 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 268 of 271 (717590)
01-29-2014 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by New Cat's Eye
01-29-2014 10:42 AM


Argument Summary
Catholic Scientist writes:
I think its fair to say that it really is the correct size of the ball in reality.
I think it's fair as well, in normal speaking terms.
It's just not fair to say when speaking in philosophy of science terms. Which I think is pretty much what this discussion is about.
In this ball-game, we need to be specific.
This all goes back to Message 194 where 1.61803 said:
1.61803 writes:
David Hume's problem of induction rears it's ugly head.
The problem we are initially faced with (before science was as popular as it is now) is: how are we able to make reliable predictions about the future?
The hurdle in our way is that all we are able to get are objective observations of the present and/or past (stupid linear time! Got us again!).
This then leaves us with induction to make predictions about the future.
The problem, of course, is that no amount of past repetition actually forces any event in the future.
This is an important concept to remember.
This is what I'm referring to when I'm talking about past observations vs. future observations.
The issue (in philosophy) is that if we know that we're relying on an inductive process... and we know that the inductive process isn't reliable... then why the hell are we doing any of it?
The practical answer is, of course: Because it works. It's not perfect, but it's pretty awesome and gets results.
But, this answer isn't "good enough" for the pedants who want a more stable basis for their "philosophy of science" and know why they're doing the things they're doing. Why does this process work?
This is where Mr. Karl Popper's solution comes into play.
Karl Popper turns the idea around on it's head.
He says the point isn't to "make predictions about the future..." That's just an emergent property.
He says that the point of science is to see what we're able to see.
We make objective observations about the past and present because we know we can do this in reality.
We can organize those objective observations to create objective conclusions (organized patterns of the data) and see what they tell us.
Then... if someone is so inclined that they want to use this data to make a prediction of the future... then that's their prerogative and good luck with all that.
Practically... I agree that it's basically the same thing and it doesn't really make a difference how you view it... as long as you get to make the predictions and follow the evidence... what else matters?
The philosophical point is that... if you follow the "old school way"... where our knowledge of the past is actually predicting the future... and we know that the reasoning and the prediction itself are both unreliable... then you can start making up all sorts of bullshit reasons to reject all of science if you wanted to. This sort of thinking can be used in a political theatre to control which "science" is to be accepted and which is to be rejected... and it can then be corrupted just as religion was abused so long ago.
However... if you follow Popper's way of thinking... then our observations aren't doing any predictions at all. Therefore... the observations are nothing more than that... they're just "observations," just "data."
From here... the objective conclusion is always an emergent property from the objective data. It doesn't matter if we want to do what it says or not... it says what it says. When days, months, years go by and all data we receive continues to match the objective conclusion (or the objective conclusion explains all the data...) we end up with a very convincing conclusion. No one is saying "I can predict the future!" you're now just saying "see? see? See how every additional observation matches what my data says it will? You can toss me and my ideas about the future out whenever they start coming out wrong!" Which has a much stronger defense against any political theatre trying to corrupt the system.
Now... going back to your basketball example and calling it "indicative of reality":
Popper's way of thinking can be reduced back even farther. Popper's saying it doesn't matter if the predictions are reliable or not, as long as our objective evidence exists. Well... it also doesn't matter if the objective evidence is reliable or not... as long as it is, indeed objective. That is... if the objective evidence is ever not indicative of reality for whatever reason (poor equipment... poor methodology... whatever...) such a thing will become apparent as an emergent property by more and more objective evidence.
Therefore, it's important to be clear that "verified objective evidence" is not "indicative of reality." Or, at least... that's not the point of collecting the objective evidence.
If we think it is indicative of reality... then we can end up following this slippery slope towards thinking our objective conclusions/predictions are actually also indicative of the future... and then we end up with no firm basis to rest our ideas upon because induction is unreliable!.
Therefore, it is important to remember that "verified objective evidence" is only what it is... objective evidence (the best we can obtain due to our limitations with reality).
Whether or not it's actually indicative of reality is entirely irrelevant. Such an issue will be dealt with as we pile on more and more and better and better objective evidence.
Whether or not the objective conclusion (future predictions) are indicative of reality is also entirely irrelevant. Similarly, such an issue will become overwhelmingly apparent as we pile on more and more and better and better objective evidence (as results become more data).
This provides us with firm reasoning for why our model of using objective evidence to guide our decisions about the future works so well.
It also shows very clearly where and how the errors are created (data that we only think is indicative of reality can slip in... the assumption you want to make about the basketball).
The thing is... we always "think" our data is indicative of reality (when we obtain it honestly, anyway...).
But, we have no way to "know" whether or not this is actually true.
Therefore... if we assume that our data is indicative of reality... we end up basing our model on unreliable assumptions that will (eventually) be shown to be unreliable... this can put a dent in everyone's confidence of using science in the first place.
However, if we don't care whether or not our data is "indicative of reality," and still obtain it in the same objective, honest manner...
Then we can see where the data leads us.
And we now know exactly what we're basing everything on... the objective data we honestly obtain.
Sometimes this ends up in wrong ideas. But the thing that lets us know that is... more data.
This way everything about the system is reliant on the data... the way science is supposed to be.
It is a slight change in the way we think of the process (philosophy of science)... but it has significant ramifications.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-29-2014 10:42 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 269 of 271 (717593)
01-29-2014 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by 1.61803
01-29-2014 11:10 AM


You're still here?
Heh.. I didn't know you were still following along. I thought you left
1.61803 writes:
I am a villiager with sheep in the herd. Up in the distance I hear cries: Wolf! Wolf! Wolf!
What am I going to do?
a) Stay in bed
b) Get up and see whats happening
c) wait for further developments
Option b is the best option.
I agree... as long as we're strictly sticking to the example you provided.
That is... this is the first time we heard the cry such that there's no past observations of the cry being wrong...
Once we add things like past observations or other information... the situation changes and therefore the outcome changes.
I don't see, however, the point you're trying to make? (Or maybe you haven't gotten to your point yet?)
I'm guessing that you'd like me to say what I think the objective conclusion should be?
If so... I'm finding it difficult to identify the objective conclusion from your example.
What is the objective data?
Obviously... we have a cry in the distance: "Wolf! Wolf! Wolf!"
If this is all we have to go on... then I suppose the objective conclusion would be "There is a wolf in the distance (where the cry came from...)" Wouldn't you agree?
Are you assuming any other objective data? Obviously, if "the objective data" included a bunch of past occasions and there was never a wolf there... then the objective conclusion would change accordingly.
From just the "Wolf! Wolf! Wolf!" data, though... the objective conclusion would dictate that we get up and see what's happening.
And then I would use my opinion/experience/skepticism to accept that this is the best choice available.
I do agree, though... that your other logic (that may or may not be based on "the objective conclusion") is also valid and makes for a good decision in this method. The same decision, actually... just for different reasons
Before I saw this post, I wrote a Summary of my Argument to Catholic Scientist in Message 268.
I think that's the first time I put down all the thoughts I've collected over the course of this thread in a nicely coherent post. (Or essay... sigh, such is my long-assed writing style...)
Feel free to pick a point there, it may have made things easier to identify if you see a flaw in my reasoning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by 1.61803, posted 01-29-2014 11:10 AM 1.61803 has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 270 of 271 (717596)
01-29-2014 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by 1.61803
01-29-2014 11:10 AM


Re: "Wrong" does not equal "opinion"
Just had an idea about what you may be trying to get at.
You offered some reasoning for your own conclusion:
1.61803 writes:
I see it this way: We have a decision to make.
We have a number of possible out comes.
We want to base our decision on the most beneficial out come.
How do we do that?
I agree that this is a valid approach to the situation.
It's just not "following the evidence." It's more "following the benefit."
I'm not saying that "the objective conclusion" is always the best conclusion (I'm not trying to claim anything about it's validity at this point).
I am, however, saying that "the objective conclusion" does exist as a non-opinion, non-subjective, possible path-of-action as long as some objective evidence exists.
Let's look at this example:
I know my mom likes blue dresses.
I know my mom looks wonderful in blue dresses.
I know my mom likes red dresses.
I know my mom looks horrible in red dresses.
I know my mom has a very fragile ego (poor thing!)
My mom is deciding to wear a red dress or a blue dress.
She puts on the blue dress (and, again, looks wonderful) and aske me: "How do I look?"
I reply "You look wonderful!"
She puts on the red dress (and, again, looks horrible) and asks me: "How do I look?"
Now... "the objective evidence" tells us that the red dress looks horrible on my mom.
Therefore, "the objective conclusion" is for me to say to my mom: "You look horrible."
This conclusion will, of course, crush my mom and make her cry.
I end up telling her it's really nice, just not as nice as the blue one... she chooses the blue one and heads out for her night on the town.
I did not follow the evidence.
I did not accept "the objective conclusion."
I used my concern of my mom's well being to lead me to say something else (as you said... perhaps I chose depending on "the most benefit" or something).
This doesn't change the fact that "the objective conclusion" was, and still is... that my mom looked horrible when she put on the red dress.
This doesn't change the fact that "the objective conclusion" is, indeed, objective and not an opinion.
I certainly do agree that there are many other factors involved when making a decision.
I also agree that "our choice" to accept the objective conclusion (or not) as our course of action is, in itself, an opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by 1.61803, posted 01-29-2014 11:10 AM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by 1.61803, posted 01-29-2014 12:51 PM Stile has seen this message but 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