 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
>>> Even tho everyone participating already knows what it means? Even when
>
>> (Consider a recording of the debate being discovered by an alien
>> culture 50,000 years in the future who have no other reference for the
>> language...)
>
> I don't follow. How would aliens 50,000 years in the future be
> participating and already know what it means?
No, no...the other way around. The aliens 50,000 years in the future
*wouldn't* be participating, and wouldn't necessarily already know what
the words that were being used mean. Hence the explicitly defining
everything...for their convenience. XD
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5-8-2009 0:39, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> Depends on who we are talking about. For myself I reserve 'knowledge'
>> for others 'superstition'. (just like most people)
> I can't parse that sentence.
That may be a dutchism How about if you replace 'reserve' by 'use', will
it parse then?
>> I know, and I am arguing that you do so because you have the false
>> belief that knowledge is objective.
>
> I never claimed it was objective. Indeed, I asserted the opposite.
Ok, then we don't understand one another (again). Why do you assert that
I cannot use 'know' when I talk about thing that *I* know for certain.
As far as I understood, you said that I should use 'believe' for all but
the most basic math because you or someone else might think different.
In particular I am not allowed to say that I know no god exist nor would
the pope be allowed to say that he knows God does exist. In my opinion
you can only do that if you have an objective reference frame that
allows you to distinguish claims in a fields of belief versus those
where truths that may be absolute.
I know I would run into problems soon in most fields, even my own. How
would you like a doctor at your bed: 'I believe that I saw more than 2
mm ST elevation on an ECG that I believe the nurse said was yours. If
that was the case then most doctors believe that this may indicate that
you are suffering from ischemia at the moment. It could be that the
electrode was wrongly positioned, but I believe this is an experience
nurse. I believe the general opinion is that the following treatment
gives the best results in such cases: ...'
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> On 5-8-2009 0:39, Darren New wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> Depends on who we are talking about. For myself I reserve 'knowledge'
>>> for others 'superstition'. (just like most people)
>> I can't parse that sentence.
>
> That may be a dutchism How about if you replace 'reserve' by 'use', will
> it parse then?
Either you mean "I reserve 'superstition' to mean other peoples'
'knowledge'" or I don't know what you mean. Why would you use the word
knowledge to refer to what you consider supersition in others?
>>> I know, and I am arguing that you do so because you have the false
>>> belief that knowledge is objective.
>>
>> I never claimed it was objective. Indeed, I asserted the opposite.
>
> Ok, then we don't understand one another (again). Why do you assert that
> I cannot use 'know' when I talk about thing that *I* know for certain.
Because if you're *wrong*, you only think you know it. Whether you're
*wrong* is what can be subjective.
But if you claim you "know" you are George Washington, I'll claim you are
merely strongly deluded.
> As far as I understood, you said that I should use 'believe' for all but
> the most basic math because you or someone else might think different.
No, I said knowledge is justified true belief. If you're not justified in
your belief, then you by definition don't know what you're asserting. If you
believe in something that's false, you don't know it. If you don't believe
it's true, then you don't know it either.
Simply asserting that if you're sufficiently confident then you know
something is newspeak.
> In particular I am not allowed to say that I know no god exist nor would
> the pope be allowed to say that he knows God does exist.
He (or you) could *say* it. That doesn't mean he's right. Assuming we're
still arguing over whether or not God actually exists, then it's a question
of whether it's (a) true and (b) justified to say it's true.
Distinguish "I know God exists" from "I know I am Napoleon." What's the
difference between these two claims? Do you see any difference between these
two claims? If not, why use that word when it's equally true to claim "I am
confident God exists" or "I am confident I am Napoleon"?
> In my opinion
> you can only do that if you have an objective reference frame that
> allows you to distinguish claims in a fields of belief versus those
> where truths that may be absolute.
Now you've made "knowledge" objective, which I think you were objecting to.
> I know I would run into problems soon in most fields, even my own. How
> would you like a doctor at your bed: 'I believe that I saw more than 2
> mm ST elevation on an ECG that I believe the nurse said was yours. If
> that was the case then most doctors believe that this may indicate that
> you are suffering from ischemia at the moment. It could be that the
> electrode was wrongly positioned, but I believe this is an experience
> nurse. I believe the general opinion is that the following treatment
> gives the best results in such cases: ...'
No, because he has justification and it is true. By saying "I know you're
suffering from ischemia" he's saying he is justified in believing it's true
and that it's true.
Simple question: Can you "know" something that's objectively real-world
false? If you want to say "I know I'm dead", simply because you are
confidently deluded of that fact, then you're just going to make "know" a
useless word meaning the same thing as "confident".
Clearly the pope thinks he is justified in believing in the existence of his
God. I am justified in believing his God does not exists. Which one of us
knows the truth depends on whether his God actually exists. I'm not sure how
you can argue with that. I'm not sure how you can say we both know the
answer, when those answers are mutually contradictory.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Let me start by saying that I don't think we'll ever agree on this one ;)
On 6-8-2009 22:56, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 5-8-2009 0:39, Darren New wrote:
>>> andrel wrote:
>>>> Depends on who we are talking about. For myself I reserve
>>>> 'knowledge' for others 'superstition'. (just like most people)
>>> I can't parse that sentence.
>>
>> That may be a dutchism How about if you replace 'reserve' by 'use',
>> will it parse then?
>
> Either you mean "I reserve 'superstition' to mean other peoples'
> 'knowledge'" or I don't know what you mean. Why would you use the word
> knowledge to refer to what you consider supersition in others?
Because that is what everybody does, even you. There will be things that
you believe are true to such extend that you don't see how anyone can
have a different opinion (either on evolution, the position of man and
women, gays, life, the moonlanding, some scientific theory, or whatever)
that are still disputed by some and considered part of your false religion.
>> As far as I understood, you said that I should use 'believe' for all
>> but the most basic math because you or someone else might think
>> different.
>
> No, I said knowledge is justified true belief.
Again that implies that you or somebody knows what is 'true'. I keep
repeating that there are many differences of opinion about what is true,
about what processes are allowed to determine if something is true and
all the other metalevels.
> If you're not justified
> in your belief, then you by definition don't know what you're asserting.
> If you believe in something that's false, you don't know it. If you
> don't believe it's true, then you don't know it either.
>
> Simply asserting that if you're sufficiently confident then you know
> something is newspeak.
no, it is much older than written history.
>> In particular I am not allowed to say that I know no god exist nor
>> would the pope be allowed to say that he knows God does exist.
>
> He (or you) could *say* it. That doesn't mean he's right. Assuming we're
> still arguing over whether or not God actually exists, then it's a
> question of whether it's (a) true and (b) justified to say it's true.
>
> Distinguish "I know God exists" from "I know I am Napoleon." What's the
> difference between these two claims? Do you see any difference between
> these two claims? If not, why use that word when it's equally true to
> claim "I am confident God exists" or "I am confident I am Napoleon"?
Because nobody would say such a thing. Technically correct, but it would
raise eyebrows if used in ordinary conversation. 'I am confident this is
my daughter', 'No sir he could not have killed him, I am confident he
was home last night'.
> > In my opinion
>> you can only do that if you have an objective reference frame that
>> allows you to distinguish claims in a fields of belief versus those
>> where truths that may be absolute.
>
> Now you've made "knowledge" objective, which I think you were objecting to.
Yes I was following your reasoning here, trying to point out leads to a
nonsense conclusion. I am confident that in e.g. Greek I would have used
another time than you did read.
>> I know I would run into problems soon in most fields, even my own. How
>> would you like a doctor at your bed: 'I believe that I saw more than 2
>> mm ST elevation on an ECG that I believe the nurse said was yours. If
>> that was the case then most doctors believe that this may indicate
>> that you are suffering from ischemia at the moment. It could be that
>> the electrode was wrongly positioned, but I believe this is an
>> experience nurse. I believe the general opinion is that the following
>> treatment gives the best results in such cases: ...'
>
> No, because he has justification and it is true.
No, he merely thinks it is true, he may be wrong, so he has to use
'believe' according to your rules.
> By saying "I know
> you're suffering from ischemia" he's saying he is justified in believing
> it's true and that it's true.
>
> Simple question: Can you "know" something that's objectively real-world
> false?
yes. I know Newton's law of gravity. Now you may argue that we know it
is wrong but still can be used as approximation. OTOH that is also true
of almost any other important theory in physics.
I also know that most cardiologists know what causes the T wave part of
the ECG. I also know that they are wrong.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> Because that is what everybody does, even you.
Yes. That doesn't mean it *is* knowledge, and that doesn't mean everything
is reasonably "knowledge" to someone. That's why I'm bringing up the
examples of Napoleon.
>> No, I said knowledge is justified true belief.
>
> Again that implies that you or somebody knows what is 'true'.
No it doesn't. It merely means there are some assertions of belief which we
cannot determine the truth of, and hence we cannot determine whether they
are actually knowledge.
> I keep
> repeating that there are many differences of opinion about what is true,
> about what processes are allowed to determine if something is true and
> all the other metalevels.
Right. And I keep repeating that while there are many differences of
opinion, there are also many facts about which there are few differences of
opinion.
>>> In particular I am not allowed to say that I know no god exist nor
>>> would the pope be allowed to say that he knows God does exist.
>>
>> He (or you) could *say* it. That doesn't mean he's right. Assuming
>> we're still arguing over whether or not God actually exists, then it's
>> a question of whether it's (a) true and (b) justified to say it's true.
>>
>> Distinguish "I know God exists" from "I know I am Napoleon." What's
>> the difference between these two claims? Do you see any difference
>> between these two claims? If not, why use that word when it's equally
>> true to claim "I am confident God exists" or "I am confident I am
>> Napoleon"?
>
> Because nobody would say such a thing.
Sure they would. I am confident God doesn't exist. See? :-)
> Technically correct, but it would
> raise eyebrows if used in ordinary conversation. 'I am confident this is
> my daughter', 'No sir he could not have killed him, I am confident he
> was home last night'.
>> > In my opinion
>>> you can only do that if you have an objective reference frame that
>>> allows you to distinguish claims in a fields of belief versus those
>>> where truths that may be absolute.
>>
>> Now you've made "knowledge" objective, which I think you were
>> objecting to.
>
> Yes I was following your reasoning here, trying to point out leads to a
> nonsense conclusion. I am confident that in e.g. Greek I would have used
> another time than you did read.
But I didn't say we could distinguish confidently between whether something
that is disputed is knowledge and something that is disputed is not knowledge.
>> No, because he has justification and it is true.
>
> No, he merely thinks it is true, he may be wrong, so he has to use
> 'believe' according to your rules.
I'm not making rules. I'm simply saying that if he says he knows something,
and that thing is false, then he's mistaken. I'm not saying he isn't confident.
>> Simple question: Can you "know" something that's objectively
>> real-world false?
> yes. I know Newton's law of gravity.
You know what it is, but you also know it doesn't apply in all situations.
And that's true of every other replaced theory, and possible of every other
scientific theory.
> I also know that most cardiologists know what causes the T wave part of
> the ECG. I also know that they are wrong.
You see, I would never say that. I would say "They think they know what
causes it, but I know they're wrong", or even "I think they're wrong".
OK, so to you, there's no difference between knowing something and being
confident it's true. I feel that's a loss.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 21:10:09 +0200, andrel wrote:
> There was a trick question about that on QI some tie ago, I forgot the
> point, however
I remember that....and now I wonder what it was, too. :-/
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 21:45:29 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> "Knowing" isn't *just* a state of mind, is what I'm trying to express.
That's a fair point, and something I hadn't considered before.
>> Well, my specific experience was the reverse - I wasn't dreaming
>
> No, because then you would have discounted it. :-)
Very likely, yes. :-)
>> But I see what you mean and will have to think on that more as well.
>
> Cool.
I find that life is generally full of challenges to things that one
asserts as true - and that "truth" (as commonly used from a philosophical
standpoint rather than a scientific or mathematical standpoint) is
something that depends on circumstances. So accepting a perception as
truth means that often it has to be subject to change.
>> Hmm, an interesting point, and something else to think about.
>
> These are fun things to think about. I find it's actually kind of
> refreshing and liberating to realize that I might be wrong in my deepest
> convictions. It makes discussions of various philosophical stuff much
> more interesting.
Same here (that's what I was trying to say above, and as always, you said
much more eloquently <g>). It takes a willingness to accept that one
might be wrong about something that's a deeply held conviction, though,
and it's rare that people do that. I think that's a real shame.
>> I think part of it with me is that I tend to attribute "faith" and
>> "belief" with "religion", so I shy away from those terms because of
>> those connotations, which I consider undesirable connotations.
>
> I don't have a problem with faith, even of a religious nature. It's when
> that "faith" turns into "knowledge" and therefore "you should do X" that
> causes trouble, religion or not. For example, in college at one point my
> mother became convinced I was doing drugs, and she wanted to see all my
> class schedules and wanted me to come home promptly. (I was commuting to
> college at the time.) I, *knowing* I wasn't doing drugs, just laughed
> and refused. No amount of confidence, belief, or faith on her part was
> going to convince me I had to change my behavior to stop doing drugs I
> wasn't already doing. So maybe I'm a little oversensitive to people
> claiming something is true simply because they're really, really
> convinced it is.
That makes a lot of sense and provides an interesting insight into your
perspective - thank you for sharing it.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 15:23:55 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Hmm. Point taken. But, then, I also tend to forget that not everyone
> necessarily took even the basic psychology course I did in college
> either, which covered at least bits of it too.
Question of putting yourself in the shoes of someone with a different set
of life experiences. :-) I never took any psychology classes in college,
my focus was engineering and then computer science.
> Still, its harder to miss
> some of the common examples of mind tricks, which have been shown on TV
> programs. But, again, that only works if you presume they where watching
> the show on "Funny tricks played on people using psychology.", instead
> of, "Random sitcom #345, in which someone trips over a hose.", that day
> instead. lol Or, well... you get what I mean. Picking things with,
> relatively, *zero* content in new ideas, or which tend to feed into
> common perception, or not watching at all, instead of pointing out where
> those perceptions fail, etc.
Yeah, I tend not to go for the brainless sitcoms, I prefer things that
make me think at least a little. Magic and misdirection (Penn & Teller
style, for example) are things I really enjoy a lot.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 21:48:30 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> better than 90% of the time, I'm right.
>
> You mean, better than 90% of the time you remember making the prediction
> and remember checking, you're right? Or do you actually keep objective
> notes?
Just an informal recollection - and yeah, I know I'm biased, but I try to
be objective about it.
> Granted, it's definitely a skill you can learn to read people and to
> pick up subtle clues. I'm just saying ...
Yes. :-)
>> I've also been told by people in professions that depend on the ability
>> to read people and situations that my instincts are exceptionally good
>> -
>
> See, now *that* is justified belief. :-) Without some external
> validation, you can never tell whether you're fooling yourself.
I do get that kind of feedback quite frequently, it seems. Of course my
best recent examples are ones that are confidential due to their legal
nature.
> Just look at any friend who is infatuated with some girl that's no good
> for him. :-)
LOL
> A very good book on the subject:
> http://www.amazon.com/Gift-Fear-Gavin-Becker/dp/0440226198
I'll have to see if the library has that one. I need to read more. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> I remember that....and now I wonder what it was, too. :-/
There are lots of strange trick questions, some of which depend on knowing
technical definitions, some which depend on simply answering the question
that was asked rather than what it sounds like.
What color was George Washington's white horse? Grey.
(Technically, it's not a white horse unless it's albino, according to breeders.)
Where is Grant buried? Not in Grant's Tomb.
(Grant is entombed there.)
Who was born on Washington's Birthday? Not Washington.
(The calendar changed between his birth and his death.)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
