|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
durantz
Stranger



Registered: 05/09/09
Posts: 697
Last seen: 9 years, 29 days
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: (wherein X is some well-presented concept or refutation of a concept).
I hear this all the time as if a person's internal resistance or emotional attachment is somehow remotely indicative of validity.
It isn't. Unless it is accompanied by some rationale, it is merely indicative of brainwashing and stubbornness.
State your rationale for putting total faith in the logical system you use.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: I can't accept X [Re: durantz]
#14179927 - 03/25/11 01:25 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I will if you can communicate that idea to me without using a logic-based system. You know I detest hypocrisy.
--------------------
|
durantz
Stranger



Registered: 05/09/09
Posts: 697
Last seen: 9 years, 29 days
|
|
There is no need to get nasty.
My question is not ridiculous.
My question is basically; "how can you be sure that I'm really asking what I'm asking?"
And then I'm going to ask you to state your rationale for coming to whichever conclusion you come to. Unless you admit that "you are unable to be certain of what I'm really asking". If you admit this then you have no rationale.
So you can either,
A. Claim to know what I'm asking based on a logical system, which you will then, kindly, state your rationale for using.
OR
B. Claim to not know what I'm asking, and in doing so admit that you do not have a true understanding of the logical system you are using...
Or you can choose to ignore me...
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: I can't accept X [Re: durantz]
#14180427 - 03/25/11 04:48 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
durantz said: There is no need to get nasty.
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: I can't accept X [Re: durantz]
#14180440 - 03/25/11 04:53 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
durantz said: There is no need to get nasty.
My question is not ridiculous.
My question is basically; "how can you be sure that I'm really asking what I'm asking?"
You've premised this question and the prior one (total faith in your logical process) on some certainty Orgone must have, but you have not made even a token argument as to how he must have this certainty, so I'm a bit unsure why you're criticising this when you've not demonstrated it.
Simply: establish your premise first. Honestly, I'd be surprised if Orgone expressed certainty in his conclusions- he'd obviously be wrong if he did. So what?
Quote:
And then I'm going to ask you to state your rationale for coming to whichever conclusion you come to. Unless you admit that "you are unable to be certain of what I'm really asking". If you admit this then you have no rationale.
Huh? This seems to be a common conflation around these parts: mixing qualitative conclusions with certainty. That you have decided something is demonstrated or true or whatever does not mean you must have unqualified certainty in it. This seems plain and is how science, law, and pretty much any well thought out system operates. Metaphysical certainty is fundamentally impossible.
Quote:
So you can either,
A. Claim to know what I'm asking based on a logical system, which you will then, kindly, state your rationale for using.
OR
B. Claim to not know what I'm asking, and in doing so admit that you do not have a true understanding of the logical system you are using...
Or you can choose to ignore me...
What do these choices have to do with the previous questions? Obviously we know what you're asking because we understand english and have confidence in our comprehension due to experience. I don't see the point your making- this confidence does not imply certainty.
|
durantz
Stranger



Registered: 05/09/09
Posts: 697
Last seen: 9 years, 29 days
|
Re: I can't accept X [Re: johnm214]
#14180451 - 03/25/11 04:59 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
Quote:
durantz said: There is no need to get nasty.
My question is not ridiculous.
My question is basically; "how can you be sure that I'm really asking what I'm asking?"
You've premised this question and the prior one (total faith in your logical process) on some certainty Orgone must have, but you have not made even a token argument as to how he must have this certainty, so I'm a bit unsure why you're criticising this when you've not demonstrated it.
Simply: establish your premise first. Honestly, I'd be surprised if Orgone expressed certainty in his conclusions- he'd obviously be wrong if he did. So what?
Quote:
And then I'm going to ask you to state your rationale for coming to whichever conclusion you come to. Unless you admit that "you are unable to be certain of what I'm really asking". If you admit this then you have no rationale.
Huh? This seems to be a common conflation around these parts: mixing qualitative conclusions with certainty. That you have decided something is demonstrated or true or whatever does not mean you must have unqualified certainty in it. This seems plain and is how science, law, and pretty much any well thought out system operates. Metaphysical certainty is fundamentally impossible.
Quote:
So you can either,
A. Claim to know what I'm asking based on a logical system, which you will then, kindly, state your rationale for using.
OR
B. Claim to not know what I'm asking, and in doing so admit that you do not have a true understanding of the logical system you are using...
Or you can choose to ignore me...
What do these choices have to do with the previous questions? Obviously we know what you're asking because we understand english and have confidence in our comprehension due to experience. I don't see the point your making- this confidence does not imply certainty.
Did you read this post in context with the 2 post previous to it?
Orgone was saying that unless a decision is accompanied by some kind of rationale it is indicative of brainwashing. So this is why I am asking him to defend that position and state his rationale for placing so much faith in the standard logical system.
|
HippieChick8
seeker of justice



Registered: 06/25/09
Posts: 869
Loc: Texas
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: I can't accept X [Re: johnm214]
#14181014 - 03/25/11 09:06 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said: I've oftene wondered why people think declaring their beliefs or lack of beliefs has any place in a philosophy forum 
Best I can figure is its a byproduct of polite acceptance of people's personal opinions in casual conversation: they begin to feel these worthless statements are somehow worthwhile when dicussing matters, and hence you get a philosophy forum with all these strange statements that amount to nothing.
I thought that "beliefs" are a part of philosophy.
From macmillandictionary.com: Philosophy - definition:Quote:
1[countable] a system of beliefs that influences someone’s decisions and behavior the latest philosophies of management
The school has a child-centered philosophy.
Thesaurus entry for this meaning of philosophy a.[countable] a belief or attitude that someone uses for dealing with life in general My philosophy is “live and let live.”
Thesaurus entry for this meaning of philosophy 2[uncountable] the study of theories about the meaning of things such as life, knowledge, and beliefs He studied politics and philosophy. a professor of philosophy
Thesaurus entry for this meaning of philosophy a.[countable/uncountable] a system of theories developed by someone as a result of the study of philosophy Kant’s moral philosophy Eastern philosophies
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: I can't accept X [Re: durantz]
#14181054 - 03/25/11 09:17 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
state his rationale for placing so much faith in the standard logical system.
You can't get any sillier that to place so much faith in a logic-based system as to buy a computer, an internet connection, electricity and so forth; and then use language - a logical sequence of symbols, to demand that I show proof of faith in logic.

You slay me!
--------------------
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: I can't accept X [Re: durantz]
#14181182 - 03/25/11 10:01 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
HippieChick8 said:
Quote:
johnm214 said: I've oftene wondered why people think declaring their beliefs or lack of beliefs has any place in a philosophy forum 
Best I can figure is its a byproduct of polite acceptance of people's personal opinions in casual conversation: they begin to feel these worthless statements are somehow worthwhile when dicussing matters, and hence you get a philosophy forum with all these strange statements that amount to nothing.
I thought that "beliefs" are a part of philosophy.
From macmillandictionary.com: [...]
They are, but that doesn't mean making bare statements of your beleifs is philosophically useful anymore than the fact that numbers are a part of math makes stating your favorite numbers helpful in a math forum. Both math and philosophy are concerned with reaching conclusions by various means, and discovering realtionships between things. Simply declaring the answer to a disputed problem to be some value is no more helpful, write or wrong, than simply declaring your beliefs: it is the process by which these answers are achieved that is the math, philosophy, whatever, which is why you'll find discussion of proofs in math texts and argument in philosophy texts.
In any case, lay dictionaries aren't the best authority on the meaning of a a term of art that may also be in common use or the nature of a subject whose title is used more generaly in common language, hence "theory" has a different meaning in a scientific context than it does in common parlance.
Quote:
durantz said:
Did you read this post in context with the 2 post previous to it?
Orgone was saying that unless a decision is accompanied by some kind of rationale it is indicative of brainwashing. So this is why I am asking him to defend that position and state his rationale for placing so much faith in the standard logical system.
Yes, I read the post in context, as evidenced by my refrence to your prior posts and the discussion.
I see you have failed to address my critisims of your questioning- why is this?
As for your argument in this post: I don't see how the fact that he claims such means he needs certainty in his beliefs. He implied belief without reason is spurious, how does this require absolute certainty in logic or anything? As I said: isn't qualitative judgment different than the confidence one has in that judgment (justified or not)? If you determine a book to be blue based on your spectrometer's measurement of the light it reflects, this does not require the spectrometer to be incapable of error nor infinitely percise for you to have a well-founded belief. Same with quantitative judgments: determining a string to be 3.06m +/-.005m (95% confidence interval) doesn't mean you are certain that it is 3.06m nor that your answer is exactly percise or correct, whether the confidence is quantified or not. In fact, you can be sure that the string is not percisely that value, but yet your determination is still reasonable if demonstrable (say by a series of measurements).
So, as I asked, aren't you conflating the justifiability or accuracy of the determination with the confidence you have in it? Doesn't the fact that he may not be certain of his answer nevertheless not contradict what he's said and not mean his answer is unreasonable or unjustified? When the jury finds you guilty, does that mean they are absolutely certain, or certain beyond a reasonable doubt?
T
|
|