Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Other Topics > Science, Math, and Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 09-28-2005, 07:07 PM
DougShrapnel DougShrapnel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 55
Default Re: More on rational deference

I read R' as R prime. Which was a better fit for this deabte than ~R, which I read as not R.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-28-2005, 07:13 PM
chezlaw chezlaw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London, England
Posts: 58
Default Re: More on rational deference

[ QUOTE ]
Chez,

[ QUOTE ]
The thing I find strange is that that's more or less what I always thought he was saying. [I put is as, if you believe R and the experts say no its R' then you shouldn't automatically believe R' but should lose belief in R.

[/ QUOTE ]

If David is right about nothing else he is virtually right if not 100% right about this, chez “You make things so complicated.”

I didn’t see your small #1 (or apostrophe) after the other R at first. I had to read it a few times, then I saw it(was my fault) . Use of another symbol or another letter would have made things “less complicated”. I guess you might have to come up with another syllogism that I can help you edit - just for practice with editing for the reader's sake.

Best regards,

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I suppose it was too much to hope for something Einsteinian about making things as simple as possible but no simpler.

chez
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-28-2005, 07:32 PM
chezlaw chezlaw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London, England
Posts: 58
Default Re: More on rational deference

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Chez I think you have shown why David's theory is a little off. He'd have made a better point if he had said something along the lines of "If a expert disagree's with you, shouldn't you be a little more skeptical about your position. Shouldn't you investigate a little further. Shouldn't you realize that hey maybe I could be wrong.
Here I am believing in something that is not likey to be correct, perhaps I should not be so certain."

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing I find strange is that that's more or less what I always thought he was saying. [I put is as, if you believe R and the the experts say no its R' then you shouldn't automatically believe R' but should lose belief in R.]

I still think that's what he means but am unsure. I honestly don't understand why he thinks trying to clear this up is complicating things.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]If I were to guess on the complication. I think David is really trying to engage the religious on this board and point out just how illogical he thinks they are. David's purpose is to teach reason to the believers on this board, and it makes it harder for him to prove his point, when he has to contend with us as well as them. Considering that we normally don't just use the bible as reference and proof. That is to say, that you weren't complicating the issue, you were just complicating his strategy against the religous minded.

It's unfortunate that he is taking a break, because he finaly got some people to admit that the belief in God isn't based on logic, and had them asking if the belief rational. But I still think that without espousing a particular philosophic, or scientific code of action as well, even the most well thought out strategy of attack will fall on deaf ears.

I believe, Sklansky was saying that you should lose belief in R, which is wrong. You should investigate belief in R and R', perhaps even suspended belief R during investigation. But what he actually means, as part of his strategy, may be something completely different.

But hey I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again.

[/ QUOTE ]

You could well be right but I think he would be mistaken. Sometimes I'm just being pedantic but here I think DS was being understood to say something that seemed (with justification) irrational to the very people he is trying to persuade to be more rational.

I doubt he was being irrational so he was probably being misunderstood. That's assuming I haven't got it all wrong which is a distinct possibility.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe, Sklansky was saying that you should lose belief in R, which is wrong. You should investigate belief in R and R', perhaps even suspended belief R during investigation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that's what I say and I think its what DS says (all of us with slightly different meanings of 'belief'. Essentially your belief in R should be weakened in some way.

The issue I wanted to clarify is if DS is going way beyond this and saying we should believe R'. I suppose we will never know.

chez
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-28-2005, 07:47 PM
RJT RJT is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 111
Default Re: More on rational deference

[ QUOTE ]
I read R' as R prime. Which was a better fit for this deabte than ~R, which I read as not R.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, I left my formal math a long while ago. Even if I was familiar with the r prime and other (I can’t type it) at one time, I have forgotten it. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Like I said, it was my error. But I look forward to more posts from chez as I do for the forum in general.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-28-2005, 08:00 PM
DougShrapnel DougShrapnel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 55
Default Re: More on rational deference

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Chez I think you have shown why David's theory is a little off. He'd have made a better point if he had said something along the lines of "If a expert disagree's with you, shouldn't you be a little more skeptical about your position. Shouldn't you investigate a little further. Shouldn't you realize that hey maybe I could be wrong.
Here I am believing in something that is not likey to be correct, perhaps I should not be so certain."

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing I find strange is that that's more or less what I always thought he was saying. [I put is as, if you believe R and the the experts say no its R' then you shouldn't automatically believe R' but should lose belief in R.]

I still think that's what he means but am unsure. I honestly don't understand why he thinks trying to clear this up is complicating things.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]If I were to guess on the complication. I think David is really trying to engage the religious on this board and point out just how illogical he thinks they are. David's purpose is to teach reason to the believers on this board, and it makes it harder for him to prove his point, when he has to contend with us as well as them. Considering that we normally don't just use the bible as reference and proof. That is to say, that you weren't complicating the issue, you were just complicating his strategy against the religous minded.

It's unfortunate that he is taking a break, because he finaly got some people to admit that the belief in God isn't based on logic, and had them asking if the belief rational. But I still think that without espousing a particular philosophic, or scientific code of action as well, even the most well thought out strategy of attack will fall on deaf ears.

I believe, Sklansky was saying that you should lose belief in R, which is wrong. You should investigate belief in R and R', perhaps even suspended belief R during investigation. But what he actually means, as part of his strategy, may be something completely different.

But hey I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again.

[/ QUOTE ]

You could well be right but I think he would be mistaken. Sometimes I'm just being pedantic but here I think DS was being understood to say something that seemed (with justification) irrational to the very people he is trying to persuade to be more rational.

I doubt he was being irrational so he was probably being misunderstood. That's assuming I haven't got it all wrong which is a distinct possibility.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe, Sklansky was saying that you should lose belief in R, which is wrong. You should investigate belief in R and R', perhaps even suspended belief R during investigation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that's what I say and I think its what DS says (all of us with slightly different meanings of 'belief'. Essentially your belief in R should be weakened in some way.

The issue I wanted to clarify is if DS is going way beyond this and saying we should believe R'. I suppose we will never know.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
Essentially your belief in R should be weakened in some way.
I think that makes the most sense as a logical arguement, I am, however, not sure if that is what David actually meant.

Pretty sure the amount of weakening is in line with the ammount of experts claiming r'.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-29-2005, 10:08 AM
Cyrus Cyrus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Tundra
Posts: 1,720
Default Hardball

[ QUOTE ]
A group of reknowned physicists put out a press release that if it is the bottom of the ninth, the score is tied, the bases are loaded and there are no outs, it is CERTAINLY MUCH BETTER to go with two outfielders and one extra infielder.
<font color="white"> .</font>

Although major league managers never do this, they should now realize that they have all very likely been making a mistake regardless of their instinct or far greater experience in the matter.


[/ QUOTE ]

I thought it was assumed that anyone posting here who has not taken in Principia Mathematicae has at least gone through Moneyball.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.