|
Author
|
Topic: Peanut Gallery
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 518 of 1725 (590688)
11-09-2010 1:02 PM
|
Reply to: Message 506 by Straggler
11-09-2010 7:02 AM
|
|
Re: Science is pseudoskeptical
that all mutually exclusive conclusions are equally valid was recently put forwards by Bluejay I am not sure your description of Bluejay's position on this matter is wholly adequate.
The belief that all knowledge is deductively derived from internally consistent axioms This, of course, is exactly the case... I believe.
He, jar, CS and others seem unable to comprehend that having been falsified is not the sole and single deciding factor when considering the relative worth of different explanations. I do not think any of them have argued this.
And in general there seem to be two camps starting from completely different points It is not at all that there are different starting points, but more-so that one 'camp', as you put it, is aware of more of the starting points, while the other 'camp' is either oblivious to them or (as pointed out above) refuses to accept them. Jon
Check out Apollo's Temple!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 506 by Straggler, posted 11-09-2010 7:02 AM | | Straggler has replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 526 of 1725 (590702)
11-09-2010 2:37 PM
|
Reply to: Message 520 by Straggler
11-09-2010 1:26 PM
|
|
Re: Science is pseudoskeptical
As I said; your description of Bluejay's argument is inadequate. Your quote of Bluejay's position in that thread demonstrates this inadequacy. Note the difference, Straggler:
quote:
Bluejay in Message 103 in Verifying Epistemologies: Simultaneous validity of two mutually exclusive conclusions is thus not a problem, so long as the two conclusions are based on different premises.
quote:
Straggler in Message 506: ... that all mutually exclusive conclusions are equally valid was recently put forwards by Bluejay.
Can you spot the difference? Do you see the importance of the parts you left out? The parts you changed? Do you see, Straggler, how this is demonstrative of your tendency to create caricatures of your opponents' positions that have little if any relation to their actual positions? Also, are you planning on responding to the other points in my previous post, or just the ones you can twist and contort to fit your perception of what you wish my arguments to be? Jon Edited by Jon, : indicative ↔ demonstrative
Check out Apollo's Temple!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 520 by Straggler, posted 11-09-2010 1:26 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 533 of 1725 (590729)
11-09-2010 5:18 PM
|
Reply to: Message 529 by Straggler
11-09-2010 2:57 PM
|
|
Re: Science is pseudoskeptical
Can you tell me where the difference is once I am quoted in full rather than half sentences? LOL. The extra parts of what you say (the parts I didn't quote) do not make up the missing information, Straggler, and so their inclusion is irrelevant. But, since you insist:
quote:
Bluejay in Message 103 in Verifying Epistemologies: "(1) Simultaneous validity of two mutually exclusive conclusions is thus not a problem, so long as the two conclusions are based on different premises." "(2) I think that all lines of reasoning will ultimately trace back to an axiomatic foundation"
quote:
Straggler in Message 7: "The belief that (2) all knowledge is deductively derived from internally consistent axioms and (1) that all mutually exclusive conclusions are equally valid"
Red = Parts Changed
Green = Parts Removed
Yellow = Parts Added White = Parts w/ no Crucial Changes
(#) = Cross Reference
Jon writes: Also, are you planning on responding to the other points in my previous post, or just the ones you can twist and contort to fit your perception of what you wish my arguments to be? See Message 206 Yup, looked at it; my question still stands. Jon
Check out Apollo's Temple!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 529 by Straggler, posted 11-09-2010 2:57 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 536 of 1725 (590736)
11-09-2010 5:54 PM
|
Reply to: Message 535 by Straggler
11-09-2010 5:48 PM
|
|
Re: Science is pseudoskeptical
No problem Jon. I accept your apology for quoting me in half sentences to misrepresent what I said. Just don't do it again. 
Check out Apollo's Temple!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 535 by Straggler, posted 11-09-2010 5:48 PM | | Straggler has not replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 648 of 1725 (594401)
12-03-2010 11:09 AM
|
Reply to: Message 643 by xongsmith
12-02-2010 2:56 PM
|
|
Re: I got it!
It is not in the province of Science to answer WHY shit happens. In what sense do you use the word 'why'? Jon
Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 643 by xongsmith, posted 12-02-2010 2:56 PM | | xongsmith has replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 651 of 1725 (594511)
12-03-2010 5:28 PM
|
Reply to: Message 649 by xongsmith
12-03-2010 11:37 AM
|
|
Re: I got it!
Why is my neighbor's new car Red? Because he likes that color, not because the paint used on the car makes my retinas perceive the car as colored Red. What my retinas do with the pigment of the paint on his car is a description of how things happen.
That didn't answer the question. In what sense do you use the word 'why'? Jon
Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 649 by xongsmith, posted 12-03-2010 11:37 AM | | xongsmith has replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 658 of 1725 (594587)
12-03-2010 11:08 PM
|
Reply to: Message 652 by Panda
12-03-2010 6:12 PM
|
|
Re: I got it!
The fact that Jon is wanting to equivocate over the meaning of 'why' ... As I can see it, there are at least two different senses for the word 'why'. In one, we question on 'causation'; in another, we question on 'purpose'. There may yet be other senses, but these appear to be the closest to the two involved in the Straggler-xongsmith discussion. Jon
Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 652 by Panda, posted 12-03-2010 6:12 PM | | Panda has not replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 659 of 1725 (594589)
12-03-2010 11:10 PM
|
Reply to: Message 657 by xongsmith
12-03-2010 9:37 PM
|
|
Re: Why not?
See Message 658 above; I think you'll find it helpful in clearing up some confusions. Jon
Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 657 by xongsmith, posted 12-03-2010 9:37 PM | | xongsmith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 660 by xongsmith, posted 12-03-2010 11:52 PM | | Jon has seen this message but not replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 916 of 1725 (603749)
02-07-2011 1:07 PM
|
Reply to: Message 915 by Stile
02-07-2011 12:10 PM
|
|
Re: There. Are. Four. Lights!
Anyway, my point is: there are 4 lights both because of the evidence for 4 lights, and for the absence of evidence of any additional lights. What is the reason for this unnecessary complication? Evidence of four lights is sufficient to conclude there are four. Unless our conclusion contains some sort of 'and no more than four' clause, there is really no need to get involved in the matter of whether there is evidence pertaining to the non-existence of a fifth (or more) light, or whether the absence of evidence for the fifth (or more) light constitutes sufficient evidence to conclude there is no fifth (or more) light.
If the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, we could never say there was "a" pen on the desk, even if it's there. Of course we could, because the English article 'a/an' makes no implications of exclusivity; only if the speaker intends some sort of exclusivity do we encounter the problem you describe. And even then, the absence of evidence may be sufficient for drawing a tentative conclusion, even while it does not support an absolute one. Besides, general answers to questions such as 'how many X are there?' aren't expected to be the product of any sort of mental or scientific rigorwhich is what is really the topic here; your appeal to societal and linguistic conventions to support your position is misguided. Jon Edited by Jon, : clarity
Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 915 by Stile, posted 02-07-2011 12:10 PM | | Stile has replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 921 of 1725 (603763)
02-07-2011 2:46 PM
|
Reply to: Message 917 by Stile
02-07-2011 1:18 PM
|
|
Re: There. Are. Four. Lights!
If we do not accept the evidence of absence of additional lights, how can we say there are only 4? Who says we have to conclude there are only four based on the evidence of four lights? As I already stated, so long as there is no 'and no more than four' clause (and that is what an 'only' modifier is, really), then we don't even need to concern ourselves with the issue of evidence for no more than four or no evidence for more than four. Thus, the addition of 'only' simply complicates the matter unnecessarily, and worse, removesin the technical senseany ability we may have to evidence the conclusion.
Why would the conclusion not contain some sort of "and no more than four" clause? Isn't that generally included when counting? Not really my burden to bear. I'm pleased with leaving off such a silly clause; if you'd like to include it, provide some evidence for itor admit it is unevidenced.
If I turn on a bunch of lights, and ask you how many there are; and you tell me "4". Are you saying this doesn't include a "no more than four" clause?
This is a general assumption made when speaking plainly about counting (as I was). As I already said, 'your appeal to societal and linguistic conventions to support your position is misguided'. We're not interested in 'plain speak' here; your position should be somehow linked to the rigors of logic that this topic requires.
Sometimes, and sometimes it does. I suppose I hoped it was obvious that I intended a value of 1 here, my mistake. You may have intended a value of 1; but that is not what you said. You claimed that people could not say 'there was "a" pen on the desk' if 'the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence', which is clearly bullshit and an equivocation with 'it's [the pen is] there' if you indeed meant 1 by 'a'.
And even then, the absence of evidence may be sufficient for drawing a tentative conclusion, even while it does not support an absolute one. Yes. This is exactly what I'm saying. Is it? I didn't notice. Jon
Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 917 by Stile, posted 02-07-2011 1:18 PM | | Stile has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 924 by Stile, posted 02-07-2011 3:08 PM | | Jon has seen this message but not replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 922 of 1725 (603765)
02-07-2011 3:00 PM
|
Reply to: Message 919 by Rahvin
02-07-2011 2:37 PM
|
|
Re: There. Are. Four. Lights!
I'm not RAZD.
Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 919 by Rahvin, posted 02-07-2011 2:37 PM | | Rahvin has not replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
Re: possibilities and probabilities
You can't tell from a simple absence of evidence of a pen. What you need, is the positive evidence of the desk with no pen on it. How does that not present the same problems? Has not everyone so far answered the question about the pen with the assumption that the desk did exist? Jon
Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
Re: possibilities and probabilities
You have more than the absence of evidence of a pen. My point was that you do need more than that. But even when we have evidence of the desk, does that let us conclude absence of the pen? Jon
Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 951 of 1725 (603873)
02-08-2011 2:23 PM
|
|
|
Made up ≠ Non-existent!
That a concept is made up does not prevent said concept from existing, or even from being a part of the natural world (i.e., not supernatural). Granted I am coming into this late, but it seems a bit silly to think we can disprove something merely by defining it in such a way that it is inherently disproven; and that is all it seems has been attempted:
Gods are made up; made up things don't exist; gods don't exist. The error of this should be obvious. Jon
Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 952 by Rahvin, posted 02-08-2011 2:43 PM | | Jon has replied | | | Message 954 by Blue Jay, posted 02-08-2011 3:41 PM | | Jon has seen this message but not replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 953 of 1725 (603880)
02-08-2011 3:32 PM
|
Reply to: Message 952 by Rahvin
02-08-2011 2:43 PM
|
|
Re: Made up ≠ Non-existent!
The real question is what's more likely. That question hardly seems relevant. People accept as truth what they want to accept as truth; for some, probabilities figure into that; for others, they aren't important. So who cares about what's likely? Statistics has little bearing on what is actual. Jon
Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 952 by Rahvin, posted 02-08-2011 2:43 PM | | Rahvin has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 958 by Rahvin, posted 02-08-2011 6:00 PM | | Jon has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2