Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Nature of Scepticism
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 226 of 271 (717056)
01-23-2014 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Straggler
01-23-2014 3:21 PM


Re: same old same old, surely you know that
Of course I can comprehend not making a decision. But we have all the information we need to conclude that brain damage as a result of the inaudible trumpeting of ethereal elephants (or any other similarly unevidenced phenomenon) is unlikely to be a real. That is the conclusion an evidence led skeptical approach leads to.
Taking that this is an hypothetical situation intentionally taken to such an extreme that the answer is actually built into the question, the basic fault is in the formation of the hypothetical situation not being a true test of skepticism. It's just another of your typically pointless word games.
Is there any evidence that this concept is worth making a decision?
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       inadequate       anyway
                     evidence         evidence       based on
                     = guess         = abstain      = opinion ?
                       (B)               (C)           (D)
You seem to prefer path (D) while I prefer path (C).
Curiously I see (D) as being less skeptical than (C).
Anyone whose ‘world view’ leads them to conclude that brain damage as a result of the inaudible trumpeting of ethereal elephants is a realistic danger without proper evidence of such - Is ...
... also taking path (D).
Edited by RAZD, : ...
Edited by RAZD, : clrty
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 225 by Straggler, posted 01-23-2014 3:21 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Straggler, posted 01-23-2014 5:07 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 227 of 271 (717057)
01-23-2014 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Modulous
01-23-2014 3:12 PM


Re: Change of Pace
Of course it is. It doesn't prove it with 100% certainty. But evidence isn't about certainty. It's about increasing the probability that something is true. No discovered dead prey animals, no tracks, no furs by someone who knows where to look to find these kinds of things - these things increase the probability of the proposition being true.
And what if these were found on the next mountain, but no other evidence?
There is objective evidence that wolves do exist and that they have attacked sheep in the past yes?
Yes you do. We have evidence that personalities and abilities are broadly consistent over time. That's why, for example, convicted rapists and murderers have a hard time getting elected to high office. There is an increased probability over others that they will commit serious offences in the future.
So if the boy had never lied before, and swore under oath that he saw a wolf we should decide he is now a liar based on failure to verify his claim yes?
Well because I believe that personalities are consistent over time - I would believe the boy genuinely thought he saw a wolf.
Indeed, even if this happened a couple of times?
Remember that the end scenario of the parable is that there is a wolf. This means that the lesson for the villagers is that their assumption of lying all the time was based on invalid logic: they should have found a different way to approach the problem.
Being skeptical of the assumption of false witness should have led into a more appropriate conclusion, yes?

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 224 by Modulous, posted 01-23-2014 3:12 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by 1.61803, posted 01-23-2014 5:11 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 230 by Modulous, posted 01-23-2014 5:15 PM RAZD has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 228 of 271 (717058)
01-23-2014 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by RAZD
01-23-2014 4:39 PM


Re: same old same old, surely you know that
Firstly - By it's own terms your little flow chart isn't based on any evidence so it can be ignored (C). It's just another of your typically pointless graphical intrusions.
Secondly - An evidence led skeptical approach leads to the conclusion that brain-damage-inducing-ethereal-elephants are very probably not a real phenomeon.
That your approach to skepticism doesn't allow you to accept or reach that conclusion merely demonstrates the problems with your approach.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2014 4:39 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2014 5:53 PM Straggler has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 229 of 271 (717059)
01-23-2014 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by RAZD
01-23-2014 4:49 PM


Re: Change of Pace
Hi RAZD,
I think the conclusions drawn, based on previous history are consistant with a rational and logical way to decision making.
However it is not without flaws. Which is why it is sometimes prudent to error on the side of safety. If one assumes there is always a wolf one will never be surprised when the wolf does come for the herd.
That being said, here is a example of assuming the wolf is coming when in fact it is a false alarm.
Just a few weeks ago there was a shooting here in town. One brother told the other brother he was living with that he would not be home that night. It was a freezing night and the brother did come home. He was locked out without a key. He started rapping on the window and then started to climb into the house.
He was shot point blank by his brother with a shotgun. Killed.
His brother ASSUMED it was a robber and CONCLUDED he was a threat.

"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 227 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2014 4:49 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2014 10:22 AM 1.61803 has not replied

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


Message 230 of 271 (717061)
01-23-2014 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by RAZD
01-23-2014 4:49 PM


Re: Change of Pace
And what if these were found on the next mountain, but no other evidence?
I'm afraid I'm not an expert in wolf predation. What is the purpose of this question? How does it address what I said about how something that increases the probability of a proposition being true is evidence, even if it doesn't lead to certainty or near certainty?
There is objective evidence that wolves do exist and that they have attacked sheep in the past yes?
Well if that weren't the case, we'd be using a different example right now wouldn't we?
So if the boy had never lied before, and swore under oath that he saw a wolf we should decide he is now a liar based on failure to verify his claim yes?
If you read my post, I explicitly said the exact opposite. Because I believe personalities are broadly consistent, I wouldn't deduce he was a liar if I knew he was honest.
Indeed, even if this happened a couple of times?
Over what period? If it happened two times in an hour, there might be an inclination toward suspicion where two times over a full human lifetime wouldn't.
Remember that the end scenario of the parable is that there is a wolf. This means that the lesson for the villagers is that their assumption of lying all the time was based on invalid logic: they should have found a different way to approach the problem.
Coming to any conclusion about the real world is based on 'invalid logic'. It wasn't an assumption of lying, it was an evidenced based conclusion of lying. Evidenced based conclusions can be false. The villagers, if they were robots, should have weighed the relative costs of action and inaction versus the probabilities of false positives and true positives. As they are human, and thus imperfect reasoners, they no doubt erred in acquiring an adequate sampling size and instead relied on heuristics to guide their decisions. But then, the story is meant to highlight the danger of falsely raising the alarm given the fact that people are likely to conclude you are a false alarm raiser prematurely (in your view) - which can have real world negative consequences.
Being skeptical of the assumption of false witness should have led into a more appropriate conclusion, yes?
One should not trust people who habitually raise false alarms. Granted, the more rational response of the villagers upon doubting the veracity of the boy's alarms would be to replace the boy with a more reliable person who doesn't muck about.
Remember, unlike us, the villagers explicitly knew there was no wolf. So they knew the alarm was false. Not a true alarm with an undetected wolf. The story isn't really about wolves of course. It is about emergencies in general. So you could replace crying 'wolf' with crying 'fire!' - where it is much easier to ascertain the truth of the matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2014 4:49 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2014 5:42 PM Modulous has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 231 of 271 (717063)
01-23-2014 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Modulous
01-23-2014 5:15 PM


Re: Change of Pace
Remember, unlike us, the villagers explicitly knew there was no wolf. ...
And yet, curiously, in the end the wolf did exist and did attack the sheep.
They assumed they knew.

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 230 by Modulous, posted 01-23-2014 5:15 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Modulous, posted 01-23-2014 5:52 PM RAZD has replied

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


Message 232 of 271 (717066)
01-23-2014 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by RAZD
01-23-2014 5:42 PM


Re: Change of Pace
And yet, curiously, in the end the wolf did exist and did attack the sheep.
Nobody was denying the existence of the wolf. It was denied there was a wolf threatening the sheep. Because the story explicitly says there was no wolf threatening sheep when he called the alarm. Here it is:
quote:
when his neighbors came to help him, laughed at them for their pains.
So he was doing it to laugh at them, not because he thought there was a wolf threatening the sheep. Then:
quote:
The Wolf, however, did truly come at last.
That is before it was falsely claimed, now it was truly there.
Now, once you've absorbed that, perhaps you could address the meat of my post rather than mangle Aesop's story.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2014 5:42 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2014 6:00 PM Modulous has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 233 of 271 (717067)
01-23-2014 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Straggler
01-23-2014 5:07 PM


Re: same old same old, surely you know that, really
Firstly - By it's own terms your little flow chart isn't based on any evidence so it can be ignored (C). It's just another of your typically pointless graphical intrusions.
You asked for a rational approach to decision making.
Secondly - An evidence led skeptical approach leads to the conclusion that brain-damage-inducing-ethereal-elephants are very probably not a real phenomeon.
By assuming you have sufficient evidence? Again: IF you have sufficient evidence then it is a different question, isn't it? Then you are on path (A) yes?
What is it?
That your approach to skepticism doesn't allow you to accept or reach that conclusion merely demonstrates the problems with your approach
Curiously the point is that it doesn't need to reach either conclusion to abstain from the question and ignore it until there may be more information -- unless you can provide a reason not to do so.

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 228 by Straggler, posted 01-23-2014 5:07 PM Straggler has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 234 of 271 (717068)
01-23-2014 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Modulous
01-23-2014 5:52 PM


the point - a consistent skeptical approach
So he was doing it to laugh at them, ...
Then they made a mistake to let him do it again.
Now, once you've absorbed that, perhaps you could address the meat of my post rather than mangle Aesop's story.
ooo better admonish Stile as well.
The point is that a different approach that considered the existence of a wolf to be a valid concern (why the boy was there in the first place yes?) was still important and that they should have replaced him after the first time, or some other solution.
The point is how a consistent skeptical approach would come to the best solution yes?

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 232 by Modulous, posted 01-23-2014 5:52 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Modulous, posted 01-23-2014 6:49 PM RAZD has replied

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


Message 235 of 271 (717072)
01-23-2014 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by RAZD
01-23-2014 6:00 PM


Re: the point - a consistent skeptical approach
Then they made a mistake to let him do it again.
Indeed, you might say nobody believes a liar...even when he is telling the truth.
The point is that a different approach that considered the existence of a wolf to be a valid concern (why the boy was there in the first place yes?) was still important and that they should have replaced him after the first time, or some other solution.
Of course, as I said earlier. But that wouldn't really have the literary punch would it?
The point is how a consistent skeptical approach would come to the best solution yes?
Yes. So what is the best solution based on your skeptical approach? Give me a few seconds, I'll reveal a simple model in my next post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2014 6:00 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2014 10:45 AM Modulous has replied

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


Message 236 of 271 (717073)
01-23-2014 6:57 PM


what are the chances?
So, let us consider proposition p.
What is the probability that p?
There are a number of approaches one could take.
One could say 'It is unknown.' This is approximately the position RAZD says should be taken.
Another approach I will elucidate here.
P(p) = Number of true propositions/Number of propositions.
For instance. If there were only 10 propositions that could be made, and only one of them was true the chance would be
P(p) = 1 / 10
But of course the real numbers are much much bigger. I submit that there are more false claims than true claims. Indeed, most propositions can be rephrased so as to be untrue in many different ways.
For instance: G = 6.67384 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2 is, as far as we can tell, a true proposition (within the accuracy provided). There are an infinite number of other values we could propose for G.
I therefore propose that the fraction Ntrue claims/Nall possible claims is very small.
Therefore, at the start of our process we conclude that P(p) is low.
But of course, we know that this is just a general result. It is, in a sense, answering the question 'If we entered every possible proposition into a hat and drew one, what are the chances that it is true?'
And this is where evidence comes in. Evidence is any fact which if true would raise the probability of the truth of a certain proposition. So now we have the question 'What is P(p) given evidence, E?'
We're almost as far as we need to go. There is also falsifying evidence. This is any fact that if true, lowers the probability of a proposition.
'What is P(p) given affirming evidence, E and doubt causing evidence, D?'
Let us turn to inaudible elephants. We start the process off by considering that its one claim among countless and is thus improbable. Then we look to the affirming evidence. We find none.
But of course we're not done. What about doubting evidence, D? Well we have evidence that people believe false things, strange things, paradoxical things, bizarre things, contradictory things with regularity. This raises the doubt that perhaps this person is delusional. There is no way for him to have acquired the knowledge of the causal relationship to his proposed elephants and brain damage through inspection of the exterior world, which lends strength to the doubting evidence in that this elephant belief might be one of many cases of the human brain confabulating.
We start with a small number. We can add nothing (or if we're being incredibly generous, a negligible amount) to the probability based on verifying facts, ie evidence. Then we subtract some because we know human brains naturally and constantly confabulate. And thus we end up with the conclusion that it is incredibly improbable.
P(p) (small) + E (negligible to zero)- D (comparatively huge) = very small probability.
In the wolf story, as it progresses the D component rises.
Let's say the flock is worth 10000. Let's say to rally a wolf defence costs 1000. This is going to be kept simple.
First alarm: Probability given E (an alarm is called) - D(5%) = 95%
Second alarm: Probability given E - D(10%) = 90%
Third alarm: P, E - d (40%) = 60%
There is a 60% chance now we reckon. Let's run a 100 trials.
60 times we defend the sheep. This costs us 60,000. But saves us 600,000
40 times it costs us 40,000.
Total: 500,000 benefit over 100 trials or 5000 per trial.
Fourth alarm = 10%
100 trials
10 times defend the sheep. This costs us 10,000. It saves us 100,000.
90 times it costs us 90,000
Total: 0
Eventually it becomes foolish to act given the doubt causing evidence, as you will soon be spending more resources protecting than the resources are worth. Even if we wish to postulate that with one set of variables, the villagers should have acted in some other way, it becomes clear there is always some point that our doubt in the veracity of a persons claims rises to the point we deem it unworthy to act upon them.
Edited by Modulous, : minor maths boo boo

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 237 of 271 (717082)
01-23-2014 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by Modulous
01-23-2014 1:29 PM


The 6 Is Up.
Therefore - would it not be true that multiple false positives actually do effect the probability that the next alarm will be correct?
No. Not at all. Throwing a 4, 1, 5 in succession does not alter your chances of throwing a 6 on the next roll.
Your wolf detector has only a 1/365 chance of being right each - and - every - day, regardless of how many times you try.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Modulous, posted 01-23-2014 1:29 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Modulous, posted 01-24-2014 7:25 AM AZPaul3 has replied

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


Message 238 of 271 (717087)
01-24-2014 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by AZPaul3
01-23-2014 10:33 PM


Re: The 6 Is Up.
No. Not at all. Throwing a 4, 1, 5 in succession does not alter your chances of throwing a 6 on the next roll.
I'm sorry - how are you determining that the previous 3 rolls were a 4 a 1 a and a 5? Because we're talking about the reliability of detectors to give accurate reports which you have failed to take into account here. Conditional probabilities, sir. If the dice reader says it is a six then what is the probability that the dice rolled a six? If I told you that my dice reader is designed to never display the correct result (and it works as designed) , I contend the chances are not 1 in 6 but 0 (or close to it).
The probability I am a murderer might be 1 in 100,000. If I have been convicted of murder, the probability is different.
Your wolf detector has only a 1/365 chance of being right each - and - every - day, regardless of how many times you try.
Exactly. Where did this number come from? Did you derive this number from the number of false positives? If so, then you agree that the number of false positives do effect the probability that the next alarm will be correct. This can be easily confirmed by changing the number from 365 to 1000 in my example. Then suddenly you would be saying the chances of it being correct are 1 in 1000. This shows that the probability of being correct is dependent on the number of times it is incorrect.
This is not the same as saying the number of false positives impacts the frequency of wolf attacks. Obviously it does not. But can you not see that as the number of false reports goes up, our confidence in the reports goes down? The entire point of an alarm is to increase your confidence that a wolf is attacking, right?
Let us say that the probability at any given arbitrary time period that there will be a wolf attack is 1 in 1000.
The alarm sounds. What is the probability that a wolf is attacking?
If you say 1 in 1000 then the alarm is useless. We could have deduced that without the alarm.
It could be that the alarm is reliable enough that it is better than guessing, no different from guessing or worse than guessing. Agreed?
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by AZPaul3, posted 01-23-2014 10:33 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by AZPaul3, posted 01-24-2014 12:14 PM Modulous has replied

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


Message 239 of 271 (717098)
01-24-2014 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by RAZD
01-23-2014 2:41 PM


Re: Change of Pace
RAZD writes:
Stile writes:
The boy cries wolf... the village expert wolf-hunters checked and concluded that there was no wolf.
Do you agree that we have objective evidence that when the boy cries wolf there is no wolf?
No, you have evidence that the expert hunter found no evidence at the time he looked.
I think you are getting stuck on the story.
My apologies, when I said I was going to try a change of pace with a simpler example... I meant I was breaking from the story and trying to simplify everything so that we can look at specific aspects.
The scenario as presented does not include a time for the hunters to look... you are assuming this is present (probably because that's in the story?).
But that's not the point of this example.
What if the hunter 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?
And even if boy may have cried wolf when there was no wolf, you don't have evidence that the next time will be the same.
Absolutely true.
Conclusions based on objective evidence do not make predictions of the future.
People make predictions of the future.
I'm just trying to show you that objective evidence does still exist, and it's possible that we may personally judge this objective evidence to "not be enough" for us to follow your chart to path B, C or D.
If we personally decide that there is "insufficient evidence" it doesn't mean that what evidence is there no longer exists... it doesn't mean that an objective, evidence-based conclusion cannot be made... it just means that we do not have confidence in that conclusion.
This is the point I'm looking for agreement from you on. Do you understand what I'm trying to say?
Jumping to conclusions is not being skeptical.
I agree.
I'm only pointing out the objective, evidence-based conclusion that does actually exist.
I'm pointing out that this conclusion exists even if there is only 1 observation.
Your chart says this first:
"is there sufficient valid information available to decide".
...my point is that as long as there is 1 objective observation... then there is "sufficient valid information available to decide" in the sense that we can make "a decision."
However, there is not "sufficient valid information available to decide" for us to make "a confident decision."
Plus, regardless of whether or not the evidence is sufficient... it cannot predict if the wolf is actually going to be there or not the next time. It can help us with a decision... but can never be 100% reliable. Such a thing is impossible as long as we are unable to observe the future.
The issue, of course, then becomes... how much objective information is required before it is "sufficiently confident?"
And we can deal with that next, if we can agree on what objective information is in the first place.
Perhaps you should try answering for me and see if you can cypher what is wrong.
Of course the objective, evidenced based conclusion would change if you add more evidence to the scenario.
That's what the conclusion is based on... the available information. If you add more information... you've changed "the available information" and of course the conclusion should be altered to account for that information.
But, let's go back and focus on something simple before we try to complicate things. When we complicate things... you end up talking about one thing and I end up talking about another and we end up confusing each other (like we did in your first response).
So:
The boy cries wolf... the village expert wolf-hunters checked and concluded that there was no wolf.
Do you agree that we have objective evidence that when the boy cries wolf there is no wolf?
If we cannot agree on such a simple concept, what point is there in moving forward?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2014 2:41 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2014 11:24 AM Stile has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 240 of 271 (717099)
01-24-2014 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by Stile
01-23-2014 12:06 PM


Re: Change of Pace
Style writes:
How does any of this change whether or not the observations are objective?
The villagers' "objective" conclusion is based on an inadequate subset of the available evidence. They're ignoring the fact that wolves exist.
Bringing the example into the present day, suppose the boy pulls a fire alarm. The firefighters arrive and there's no fire. The boy pulls the alarm again and again the firefighters find no fire. This goes on and on but the firefighters keep coming - because they've drawn an actual objective conclusion that there could be a fire.
Stile writes:
I think one of RAZD's issues, and I think it's rather prevalent in the general population... is that some people think that just because it's objective and evidenced... then it's necessarily "real."
My issue is that the villagers conclusion is not really objective.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Stile, posted 01-23-2014 12:06 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Stile, posted 01-24-2014 11:34 AM ringo 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