Jim Henderson wrote:
> before the current executive leader of the country because there was 
> actually a different form of national government here before our current 
> system. 

I'm not sure if you can argue it was a "national government" when it opened 
up pledging allegiance to the King of England and wasn't a nation to start 
with. Very edge-case. :-)

-- 
   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 Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:25:30 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> before the current executive leader of the country because there was
>> actually a different form of national government here before our
>> current system.
> 
> I'm not sure if you can argue it was a "national government" when it
> opened up pledging allegiance to the King of England and wasn't a nation
> to start with. Very edge-case. :-)

I wasn't making the argument, just repeating the point made in the 
discussion thread I pointed at. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> I wasn't making the argument,

Yes, I should have used "one" there. I know it's not your argument. :-)


-- 
   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 Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:49:12 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I wasn't making the argument,
> 
> Yes, I should have used "one" there. I know it's not your argument. :-)

I figured as much. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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.
> 
Now... There is an irony. My CS degree was the one that "required" a 
basic course in psych. lol

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Now, if everyone that was telling you that you are good at detecting
>> deceit where one of those who claimed to trust priests, farmers and
>> prostitutes, before scientists, what would your reaction be to their
>> certainty of how good you are?
> 
> Admittedly not that good.  That's why I don't look to those kinds of 
> people (or people actually in those professions) to help me adjust my 
> personal self-perception bias.
> 
> Jim

Well, my point here was that "everyone" has some general biases. Its not 
hard to detect "some" kinds of deceit, especially if they manage to 
press many of the wrong buttons. After all, its likely that the 
individual you are talking about where used to dealing with precisely 
the people that thought they where going to, i.e. lawyers. They knew 
their mind set, they knew what to say that would sound plausible to 
"those" people, etc. You on the other hand... they where not able to 
predict, so couldn't, as effectively, mess with. So, yes, in that 
situation "anyone" with your background might have had "better" 
instincts than the people who they where "intending" to target.

This is actually so common that there are a few companies that have 
started, based on the theory, "Everyone has blind spots." The idea being 
that an engineer, for example, may be clearly aware of some math, 
design, behavior, or curiosity of the things they work on, which a 
biologist simply doesn't know. Yet, that thing "may" provide a lead 
into, or explanation for, some biological issue, for which a purely 
bio-based examination fails to come up with. Mind, this is kind of like 
someone failing to realize that triangles are applicable to house 
building, as well as bridge building, but its still a blind spot. 
Laywers, also have blind spots. And, my guess is, who ever your working 
with, do, and they just happen to not match yours. ;)

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Incorrect.  The term "President" was used in the continental congress 
> prior to the first US President.

  The term "president" was used for a lot of things way before the USA was
founded. My point was that it was never used as the title of the leader of
a sovereign country.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 7-8-2009 1:25, Darren New wrote:
> 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.

Let me put it this way: I say I *'know'* something if it is beyond 
reasonable doubt for *me*. Beyong reasonable doubt can be for a number 
of reasons:
1) based on authority that I have no reason to doubt (the sun is about 
150 million kilometers away)
2) own experience (there must be an algorithm that computes the cube of 
an integer finalizing 3 bits per iteration*)
3) when the negation would be incompatible with my existence (god does 
not exist)
Possibly an underlying problem in this discussion is that you assumed 
that the non existence of god is category 1 or 2 knowledge (because it 
would be for you?) whereas it is actually category 3. Also possibly 
confusing is that I admit that for theists the negation may also be 
category 3. I don't see a problem in that because we are different people.

>>> 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.

To which I countered that there is virtually nothing that we can be sure 
of and for those things that we are certain about we can always question 
the method by which we are certain. The logical conclusion is that under 
your rules there is no knowledge at all.

>> 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.

How many is a few and who is to draw the line?

>>>  > 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.

So why would you object if someone says that for him it is (or isn't)?

>>> 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.

And if he is confident that it is true would he be allowed to say it is 
'knowledge'? I feel that time and time again we come back to a person 
expressing something he knows is true versus you as an outsider claiming 
he should not say that because *you* know different.

>>> 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".

That is because you are reasoning from your perspective not theirs or 
mine. It is category 1 knowledge for them, so they are allowed to use 
'know'. Also I don't think they are wrong, I know, that is category 2.

> OK, so to you, there's no difference between knowing something and being 
> confident it's true. I feel that's a loss.

There is, knowing implies a lot more than merely being confident.

------------------
*) To create some sort of parallelism with god I decided to take an 
example of something I, and possibly nobody else, has never seen.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 03:39:11 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Incorrect.  The term "President" was used in the continental congress
>> prior to the first US President.
> 
>   The term "president" was used for a lot of things way before the USA
>   was
> founded. My point was that it was never used as the title of the leader
> of a sovereign country.

Yes, and I was intending my writing to be read as "as the leader of a 
country".  Apparently the idea came from the president of cricket clubs.  
I wasn't saying that this was the *origin* of the word.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 22:39:03 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> 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.
>> 
> Now... There is an irony. My CS degree was the one that "required" a
> basic course in psych. lol

That is ironic. ;-)

And I can see the benefit of taking a psych course for CS majors - 
teaching geeks how to interact with people and understand how people 
tick. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message