 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] nospam com> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 22:52:05 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 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.
Perhaps, but the specific case in hand the person wasn't intending to be
talking to the lawyer at all. He was trying to force me to do something/
allow him to do something. He said the magic words that meant I had to
take it to legal, though - and he was *very* surprised when he got a call
from a lawyer. He was trying to deceive me, but didn't know me very
well. His thinking was "Jim should value me and my contribution, so I
should be able to force him to bend to my will". When I didn't, he
started trying to use deceit, even dragging others into his deception
(which could have gotten really ugly).
> 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. ;)
One of the things I've read is that every company's marketing department
needs someone with a sick sense of humour. Reason being that when
product naming/marketing plans/marketing campaigns are created, you need
that person to make sure you're not being blind to some sort of rude word
in your marketing that isn't intended. Like an abbreviation that almost
spells a curse word.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Daniel Bastos
Subject: Talking about degrees... (Was: Re: Christian Conspiracy Question)
Date: 8 Aug 2009 15:03:02
Message: <4a7dcbe6$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
My degree required a number of classes in various fields, and after
taking all of them, I still had to take some more credits to fill it
up reaching a minimum of 124. But, to my surprise, the credits could
be any field other than my own major. Anyway, later on, I applied for
another degree in another school who then told me: ``you didn't take
too many credits in your field.''
Define frustration.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> 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.
>
body else, has never seen.
And yet.. You miss category 4: "Because the negation would contradict
societal ideas and social beliefs, which I am heavily invested in." One
**strongly** suspects that the same argument of negation in #3 would be
stated by *anyone* with *any* god, even one so terrifyingly different
from yours that you find its very nature abhorrent. In fact, I am
certain of it. Its the Francis Collins method of "knowing". And, its
been rightly dissected by numerous people, ever since it was suggested
he might become the head of the NIH. This is one of the better ones:
http://www.reasonproject.org/archive/item/the_strange_case_of_francis_collins2/
I am sure it wouldn't be *too hard* to think of other things, besides
religion, which are entirely social constructs of their society, are
presumed to be "known" as fact, and yet are absolutely nothing of the sort.
--
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:
> On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 22:52:05 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Perhaps, but the specific case in hand the person wasn't intending to be
> talking to the lawyer at all. He was trying to force me to do something/
> allow him to do something. He said the magic words that meant I had to
> take it to legal, though - and he was *very* surprised when he got a call
> from a lawyer. He was trying to deceive me, but didn't know me very
> well. His thinking was "Jim should value me and my contribution, so I
> should be able to force him to bend to my will". When I didn't, he
> started trying to use deceit, even dragging others into his deception
> (which could have gotten really ugly).
>
And, I am sure it worked before, on people more gullible. Most people,
whether they have suspicions or not, will cave under such tactics,
either due to being unaware how far they could take it, or because they
don't want to put in the effort to fight back.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
