 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 15:23:43 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I don't see how that relates - I'm talking about understanding depth of
>> field.....?
>
> I've even read of tribes of people living in rainforests for generations
> who, when the researcher takes them out of the forest, are amazed that
> he knows how to make cows the size of flies. Never having been able to
> see more than a dozen yards in a straight line, they never got the whole
> perspective thing figured out.
>
> Not that I've ever been able to find a cite for that, but I remember
> reading it long ago in a context that would imply it wasn't fictional.
Yeah, I remember reading that as well, I think maybe even up here, but
there wasn't a good citation for it.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 17:29:30 -0500, David H. Burns wrote:
> that I objected to
> the tern "Bible Belt".
> I do think that it is hardly ever used in any but a pejorative sense
I've never actually heard it used in a pejorative or derogatory sense.
I've always heard it to refer to a set of southern states (as defined on
the map that Darren pointed to) where there is a fair grouping of people
following various sects of Christianity. I've heard it used by people
from *within* the Bible Belt as well, at that.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 09:34:29 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> To this day, I know that I avoided a disaster that night.
>> No you don't. You just strongly believe it.
>
> Well, that's your read of it, but I know differently.
I understand what you're saying. But if you *know* you're Napoleon, and I
tell you you just strongly suspect it, I think I'd win, in general.
"Knowing" isn't *just* a state of mind, is what I'm trying to express.
> Well, my specific experience was the reverse - I wasn't dreaming
No, because then you would have discounted it. :-)
> But I see what you mean and will have to think on that more as well.
Cool.
> 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.
> 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.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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?
Granted, it's definitely a skill you can learn to read people and to pick up
subtle clues. I'm just saying ...
> 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.
Just look at any friend who is infatuated with some girl that's no good for
him. :-)
A very good book on the subject:
http://www.amazon.com/Gift-Fear-Gavin-Becker/dp/0440226198
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Just so you know, falling back on the "every single word in the entire
>> discussion has to be extensively and precisely defined, even tho all
>> participants already know what it means" is an old and foolish
>> debating trick.
>
> Why foolish? Seems reasonable to me. Make sure everyone's on the same
> proverbial page, and clarifies things.
Even tho everyone participating already knows what it means? Even when the
words admittedly don't have the sort of precision you're asking for?
Especially when the topic isn't even about the words that you're arguing the
definitions for?
Sorry. Foolish. Especially foolish if you do it so transparently. :-)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Even tho everyone participating already knows what it means? Even when
> the words admittedly don't have the sort of precision you're asking for?
> Especially when the topic isn't even about the words that you're arguing
> the definitions for?
>
> Sorry. Foolish. Especially foolish if you do it so transparently. :-)
Well, how about having a pre-debate meeting where you explicitly define
all the words you're going to be using? XD
(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...)
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook schrieb:
> Well, how about having a pre-debate meeting where you explicitly
> define all the words you're going to be using? XD
>
... and of course a pre-pre-debate, to define the language to use in the
pre-debate :P
(which reminds me of that dictionary entry "recursion: see -> recursion")
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] san rrcom> schreef in bericht
news:4a77087b$1@news.povray.org...
>
> I think people don't have an instinct for a particular language, but an
> instinct to learn whatever language they're around. Much like birds learn
> how to fly, pretty much reliably.
>
> Of course, if you're entire raised around non-verbal beings, the instinct
> to try to learn is going to get frustrated, just like you can starve
> without food even tho you have an instinct to get hungry and eat when you
> need to.
>
Yes. That is correct. I just browsed again through some textbooks dealing
witht his. We definitely have the inate "building blocks" for (complex)
language, but we need the proper environment (i.e. parents, other members of
the group) to trigger and control the faculty.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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?
--
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 4-8-2009 1:46, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> What I said (and I think Jim is along the same line) is not that
>> knowledge is faith but that those that believe *know* that they are
>> right.
>
> Right. Except by making it mean "I'm really *really* faithful", you've
> eliminated the usefulness of the word.
Again, that is not what I did.
> If I said "I *know* Lincoln was the first president of the USA", what
> would you say? What if I was absolutely positive? Would you say I knew
> that for a fact? Or would you say "No, your belief is incorrect"?
>
>> I can not prove it,
>
> You have justification for your belief.
>
> One can argue over whether there is sufficient justification to turn a
> belief in something that happens to be true into knowledge, sure. But no
> amount of confidence without justification will turn belief into knowledge.
The problem with this statement is in 'without justification'. That
unfortunately is not an objective term and that is where the problem is.
>
> Maybe I'm just a bit oversensitive, with all the people who actually
> deep-down inside know they are *not* right trying to convince me by
> overstating their knowledge.
I am overstating, deep down there is no doubt, but I am not trying to
convince you, so that is not incompatible with your statement
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4-8-2009 1:46, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
ps
> If I said "I *know* Lincoln was the first president of the USA", what
> would you say? What if I was absolutely positive? Would you say I knew
> that for a fact? Or would you say "No, your belief is incorrect"?
I think I'd say that you have your facts wrong. That happens quite
often. Sometimes when I give a talk I end with the conclusion that 'what
is common knowledge may not be true'. Specifically of course when I have
just shown an example of that.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> On 4-8-2009 1:46, Darren New wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> What I said (and I think Jim is along the same line) is not that
>>> knowledge is faith but that those that believe *know* that they are
>>> right.
>>
>> Right. Except by making it mean "I'm really *really* faithful", you've
>> eliminated the usefulness of the word.
>
> Again, that is not what I did.
"Those that believe *know* they are right" is incorrect. "Those that believe
think they *know* they are right" is correct.
> The problem with this statement is in 'without justification'. That
> unfortunately is not an objective term and that is where the problem is.
It depends on how good your evidence is, of course. If you believe you were
kidnapped by aliens while your entire family watched you sleeping in front
of the fireplace, then you're without justification for your belief.
If you think you know that George Washington was the first president of the
USA, you're pretty justified in believing that.
As I said, there are grey zones in the middle, of course, where one might
not know if there was sufficient justification.
>> Maybe I'm just a bit oversensitive, with all the people who actually
>> deep-down inside know they are *not* right trying to convince me by
>> overstating their knowledge.
>
> I am overstating, deep down there is no doubt, but I am not trying to
> convince you, so that is not incompatible with your statement
Right.
--
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 4-8-2009 20:56, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 4-8-2009 1:46, Darren New wrote:
>>> andrel wrote:
>>>> What I said (and I think Jim is along the same line) is not that
>>>> knowledge is faith but that those that believe *know* that they are
>>>> right.
>>>
>>> Right. Except by making it mean "I'm really *really* faithful",
>>> you've eliminated the usefulness of the word.
>>
>> Again, that is not what I did.
>
> "Those that believe *know* they are right" is incorrect. "Those that
> believe think they *know* they are right" is correct.
Only from the perspective of an outsider. Knowledge is not objective, I
understand why you would like it to be so, but alas...
>
>> The problem with this statement is in 'without justification'. That
>> unfortunately is not an objective term and that is where the problem is.
>
> It depends on how good your evidence is, of course. If you believe you
> were kidnapped by aliens while your entire family watched you sleeping
> in front of the fireplace, then you're without justification for your
> belief.
Which would not stop some people from knowing they had been abducted,
even if you would insist they mere believe it.
> If you think you know that George Washington was the first president of
> the USA, you're pretty justified in believing that.
There was a trick question about that on QI some tie ago, I forgot the
point, however :(
> As I said, there are grey zones in the middle, of course, where one
> might not know if there was sufficient justification.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4-8-2009 21:10, andrel wrote:
> Only from the perspective of an outsider. Knowledge is not objective, I
> understand why you would like it to be so, but alas...
Isn't there a scene in Goedel Escher Bach where something is proven but
then the focus turns on the proof rules, because they must first be
agreed on. But that requires that you have to agree on how to make rules
proof rules etc.
Which a.o. shows that you don't have to agree on what constitutes a
proof, you can always go to a meta level. That even works for Euclid. I
think it is clear that somewhere on the third meta level we don't agree.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> Only from the perspective of an outsider. Knowledge is not objective, I
> understand why you would like it to be so, but alas...
Well, we're kind of debating over the meaning of the word. What's the
objective word *you* would use for justified true belief?
> Which would not stop some people from knowing they had been abducted,
> even if you would insist they mere believe it.
OK. I'm just objecting to the use of that word to mean that you can know
something which you are justified in believing is false.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> Isn't there a scene in Goedel Escher Bach where something is proven but
> then the focus turns on the proof rules, because they must first be
> agreed on.
This always happens when you try to make math tell you something about the
real world. The problem isn't with proving something mathematically. It's
with proving that the math is isomorphic to reality.
--
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 4-8-2009 23:49, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> Only from the perspective of an outsider. Knowledge is not objective,
>> I understand why you would like it to be so, but alas...
>
> Well, we're kind of debating over the meaning of the word. What's the
> objective word *you* would use for justified true belief?
Depends on who we are talking about. For myself I reserve 'knowledge'
for others 'superstition'. (just like most people)
>> Which would not stop some people from knowing they had been abducted,
>> even if you would insist they mere believe it.
>
> OK. I'm just objecting to the use of that word to mean that you can know
> something which you are justified in believing is false.
I know, and I am arguing that you do so because you have the false
belief that knowledge is objective.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 11:49:13 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 22:10:36 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is basic child development stuff, sheesh..
>>> Well, you may have a background in child development. I don't.
>>> Sheesh.
>>>
>>> Jim
>> Actually, no I don't, but I read **a lot**, especially since, starting
>> some 20 years ago, I had a fascination with AI, and the logical means to
>> learn about why it didn't work well, once I found that, is to learn how
>> the mind worked. My discovery was, sadly, that real brains don't work
>> much better, they just have a more robust system of, "fill in the blanks
>> and hope it works".
>
> My point stands, you've read more about it than I do. So your expressed
> "disdain" for what I said that you said was "basic child development
> stuff" really was misplaced, which kinda was my point.
>
> Jim
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. 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.
I suppose... Its sort of similar to the reaction that someone who has
gone to church every day for 20 years (but probably never read the Bible
on their own from cover to cover, in my, and other's experience),
wondering how I don't **get** how all the "truths" they know are valid.
But, its not *quite* the same thing, since, imho, they are the people
standing, like the natives in one of the other posts, looking out at a
field and going, "How did you make cows the size of flies?" I definitely
need to remember that one.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
> 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.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 12:10:24 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 21:54:23 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>>
>>>> Instinctive certainties, however, are wrong more than half the time.
>>> Citation?
>>>
>> Uh.. Such numbers are also made up and wrong, more than half the time?
>> lol
>
> It is true that 78.64% (I'm rounding) of all statistics are made up on
> the spot. :-)
>
>> Seriously though, I don't know the actual number, or have a cite, but I
>> *have* seen cases dealing with cognition, where you can not only get
>> 50-50 fails, but even 99% failures. One of the best examples is the,
>> "two people with a big sign walking rudely between two people talking.",
>> experiment they run, yearly, at some colleges, for their psychology
>> experiments. The one where they replace the person asking the question
>> of some random person with someone the wrong height, dressed wrong, in
>> clothing some **totally** different color, or even the wrong gender, and
>> like 90% of the people being "asked", never notice the substitution. The
>> brain just starts over where it was interrupted, so long as the
>> conversation "seems" to be the same, and ignore **everything** else. The
>> replacement could probably be standing their nude and the only reaction
>> you would get was, "Damn, I didn't realize when you came up that you
>> where nude.", not, "Where the hell did the original person I was talking
>> to go?"
>>
>> The ease by which the mind can be tricked is actually quite scary.
>
> True, but at the same time, some people have *very* good instincts. I
> seem to be one of those kinds of people - because I have an instinct that
> something's going to be OK or work out for the best, and I find that
> better than 90% of the time, I'm right. That's far better than the luck
> of averages.
>
Actually. No. There are two problems with this. One is called
"confirmation bias". The mind, as a means of helping itself *make* such
good choices, de-emphasizes bad ones, while exaggerating perceived good
ones. The result is that we tend to forget the bad things. Someone gave
and example of this about why we tend to, in old age, think the past was
better than now. The way they put it is, "50% of everything ever made is
useless crap, whether it be music, literature, or anything else. Much of
the good stuff is kept, some of the bad stuff survives, but, overall, we
only ever actually remember the good bits, so the past always **seems**
to contain fewer problems, better ideas, better things, etc. than now."
Or, something roughly to that effect.
Everyone thinks that they make good instinctive decisions 90% of the
time, save for those people that are totally disfunctional and hide in
their houses, unwilling to make *any* decisions. Its our nature to
forget the cases where we screwed up, or at least marginalize them, in
favor of a self perception of being right most of the time. We couldn't
function effectively if we second guessed every action, based on a
recognition that we get it close enough to right only half the time to
call it "good instinct".
Its also a tested psychological factor that the true twits in society
have a coping mechanism, by which they "exaggerate" their own competence.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/01/18/MN73840.DTL
By the same token, people *good at their jobs*, tend to know that they
could be wrong, are prone to mistakes, and can get to be hyper critical
of their own successes. What would appear to be "pride" or "humility" in
people with high positions could very well be signs of instead
"incompetence" and "great skill", in the same order. Left me struggling
with an infinite loop though, "are the things I am bad at, things I am
actually pretty good at, but I didn't see it, because I am too critical,
or am I instead horrible at the things I think I am good at, and still
as bad at the ones I think I am, as I believe." lol
> 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 -
> I have an extremely good track record and picking out attempts at
> deception. Part of that I attribute to the fact that I tend not to trust
> very easily because I know that people will generally try to get away
> with whatever they can.
>
> Jim
I would, with some caveats, tend to allow for their perceptions to be
less flawed than yours. The caveats being, for starters, that their
perception of "why" you seem to have good instincts may be due to their
own flawed views of who a good candidate for deception are, and the
like, due to personal bias, than to actual skill in the matter. Good
example of this sort of fun thing:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8183502.stm
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?
Point being, pretty much by definition, any social group you are in is
**already** predisposed, by you as a member, to perceive your
contribution as more trustworthy than someone else's. Its the whole my
tribe/monkey-troop is more worthy than those other monkeys, thing. ;)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:35:41 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> 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.)
Yeah, but I don't think it was actually this kind of trick question.
I'll have to find the episode if I have a few hours to spare (we still
have many of the XL episodes from the last series to go through anyways)
and see what the answer was.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 15:44:36 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> True, but at the same time, some people have *very* good instincts. I
>> seem to be one of those kinds of people - because I have an instinct
>> that something's going to be OK or work out for the best, and I find
>> that better than 90% of the time, I'm right. That's far better than
>> the luck of averages.
>>
> Everyone thinks that they make good instinctive decisions 90% of the
> time, save for those people that are totally disfunctional and hide in
> their houses, unwilling to make *any* decisions. Its our nature to
> forget the cases where we screwed up, or at least marginalize them, in
> favor of a self perception of being right most of the time. We couldn't
> function effectively if we second guessed every action, based on a
> recognition that we get it close enough to right only half the time to
> call it "good instinct".
Except that my view is confirmed by people who are in a position to
evaluate objectively and without bias or anything to gain. For example,
in one circumstance I had evaluated the potential for deceit in a
situation that involved lawyers, and the lawyers initially thought that I
might have a point, but that they needed something concrete other than a
"gut feeling" (which in my mind was backed up by a thoughtful analysis of
the person and the items in question). The person then admitted to the
deceit, proving my instinct correct.
The lawyer involved who I had expressed my suspicion of the evidence
provided was not swayed from his stance of "we have to take it at face
value" until the OP had admitted the deceit, at which point the lawyer
complimented me on my instincts and insight into the items in question.
> Its also a tested psychological factor that the true twits in society
> have a coping mechanism, by which they "exaggerate" their own
> competence.
Perhaps "true twits" should be replaced with something indicating that in
general it's human nature to do so? I try to be objective about myself,
and yes, it is hard to do, especially if one doesn't make a conscious
decision to be objective in self-evaluation. I think most people are
prone to exaggeration about their own abilities and skills. That's
confirmed, in part, by an adjustment that is made in standard course
evaluations from Knowledge Advisors - there are questions that ask about
the % of increase in productivity (I'd have to look at the questions
again for the exact verbiage) as a result of training, and it's a
situation where the individual answers have no meaning at all, but the
aggregate answer does provide useful information, but only after an
adjustment downward of the average answer of something like 30% (again
would have to look at my notes to see what the specific value in the
adjustment is).
>> 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
>> - I have an extremely good track record and picking out attempts at
>> deception. Part of that I attribute to the fact that I tend not to
>> trust very easily because I know that people will generally try to get
>> away with whatever they can.
>>
> I would, with some caveats, tend to allow for their perceptions to be
> less flawed than yours. The caveats being, for starters, that their
> perception of "why" you seem to have good instincts may be due to their
> own flawed views of who a good candidate for deception are, and the
> like, due to personal bias, than to actual skill in the matter. Good
> example of this sort of fun thing:
Well, I'd refer back to the above example involving the lawyers. It's
not the only example, but one of the more notable. The advantage there
was that the lawyer in question was more inclined to dismiss my idea
because he had to make a totally objective decision about what the best
course of action would be - least costly, least likely to cause
litigation, etc. And he's got a great deal of experience in making those
determinations and has a very good track record himself.
> 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
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7-8-2009 20:14, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:35:41 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> 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.)
>
> Yeah, but I don't think it was actually this kind of trick question.
> I'll have to find the episode if I have a few hours to spare (we still
> have many of the XL episodes from the last series to go through anyways)
> and see what the answer was.
I remember something along the lines of somebody else being appointed as
a president of america before the independence war or something like that.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7-8-2009 19:35, Darren New wrote:
> 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.)
They are born with a color and 'prematurely' grey, so grey or white is
not their natural color, but you knew that of course.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> I remember something along the lines of somebody else being appointed as
> a president of america before the independence war or something like that.
Technically, since there wasn't a USA before the independence war, they'd
have to word the question very oddly. If they say "First American President"
and mean "First president on the north american continent", then it quite
possibly would be a native american or some such, etc.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> They are born with a color and 'prematurely' grey, so grey or white is
> not their natural color, but you knew that of course.
Yeah. The point is that when you register the horse for racing or breeding
or something, writing the color as "white" means it's albino. If the
*hooves* are brown, it's a grey horse (or brown horse or whatever). The
trickiness of the question is based entirely on the arbitrary rules by the
people who set up the registries.
All horses are born January 1, also. Same sort of silliness.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Perhaps "true twits" should be replaced with something indicating that in
> general it's human nature to do so?
It's a survival trait, actually. You forget the times you were wrong but
mostly unharmed, because that's less important to survival than guessing
right. You rarely forget to look both ways before crossing the street if
you've actually been run down before, tho. That's where the whole concept of
"grudge" and "stereotype" sort of thinking comes from.
Just like it's natural to overestimate danger of rare events. If guessing
wrong once in 100 times that the rustling isn't a tiger in the grass, you
get eaten. So naturally every rustle seems like a dangerous predator even if
it almost never is. Hence the wild overreaction to things like a mother
letting the kids walk home from the store, even tho only something like 20
kids a year get kidnapped in the whole country by someone other than their
own relatives.
--
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 21:01:50 +0200, andrel wrote:
>> Yeah, but I don't think it was actually this kind of trick question.
>> I'll have to find the episode if I have a few hours to spare (we still
>> have many of the XL episodes from the last series to go through
>> anyways) and see what the answer was.
>
> I remember something along the lines of somebody else being appointed as
> a president of america before the independence war or something like
> that.
This seems to cover it, I think:
http://www.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?p=32722
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 12:20:13 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> All horses are born January 1,
It's only after they reach 3 that they are given their "real" name. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 12:25:59 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Perhaps "true twits" should be replaced with something indicating that
>> in general it's human nature to do so?
>
> It's a survival trait, actually. You forget the times you were wrong but
> mostly unharmed, because that's less important to survival than guessing
> right. You rarely forget to look both ways before crossing the street if
> you've actually been run down before, tho. That's where the whole
> concept of "grudge" and "stereotype" sort of thinking comes from.
>
> Just like it's natural to overestimate danger of rare events. If
> guessing wrong once in 100 times that the rustling isn't a tiger in the
> grass, you get eaten. So naturally every rustle seems like a dangerous
> predator even if it almost never is. Hence the wild overreaction to
> things like a mother letting the kids walk home from the store, even tho
> only something like 20 kids a year get kidnapped in the whole country by
> someone other than their own relatives.
Makes sense to me. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7-8-2009 21:40, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 21:01:50 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
>>> Yeah, but I don't think it was actually this kind of trick question.
>>> I'll have to find the episode if I have a few hours to spare (we still
>>> have many of the XL episodes from the last series to go through
>>> anyways) and see what the answer was.
>> I remember something along the lines of somebody else being appointed as
>> a president of america before the independence war or something like
>> that.
>
> This seems to cover it, I think:
>
> http://www.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?p=32722
yup, was it already 4 years ago. o how time flies (please don't quote Marx)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 22:36:02 +0200, andrel wrote:
> On 7-8-2009 21:40, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 21:01:50 +0200, andrel wrote:
>>
>>>> Yeah, but I don't think it was actually this kind of trick question.
>>>> I'll have to find the episode if I have a few hours to spare (we
>>>> still have many of the XL episodes from the last series to go through
>>>> anyways) and see what the answer was.
>>> I remember something along the lines of somebody else being appointed
>>> as a president of america before the independence war or something
>>> like that.
>>
>> This seems to cover it, I think:
>>
>> http://www.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?p=32722
>
> yup, was it already 4 years ago. o how time flies (please don't quote
> Marx)
Yeah, I hadn't realized it was that long ago, would've missed it in my
review. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> andrel wrote:
> > I remember something along the lines of somebody else being appointed as
> > a president of america before the independence war or something like that.
> Technically, since there wasn't a USA before the independence war, they'd
> have to word the question very oddly. If they say "First American President"
> and mean "First president on the north american continent", then it quite
> possibly would be a native american or some such, etc.
I might have understood this completely wrongly, or I'm remembering it
wrongly, or perhaps I'm confusing it with something else (but similar),
but I got the impression that the first time in history that any head of
state has been given the name "president" was precisely when the USA was
founded, and the title given to its first president, Washington. It wasn't
but after that that other countries followed the practice.
(The word "president" was certainly used before that, but never for the
leader of an entire independent country.)
Thus saying that someone else was "the first president of US/America"
has to be quite a stretch of the word "president".
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> but I got the impression that the first time in history that any head of
> state has been given the name "president" was precisely when the USA was
> founded,
Now that you mention it, I kind of remember hearing something about that.
There was even an argument over what honorific to use, and Washington
decided that just "Mister President" would do. As in, my vague memories of
grade school are telling me you're right in that.
I was also thinking of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Association
which was a kind of bit of local government set up a few years before the
actual revolution. But it doesn't look like it set up an actual leader.
It's possible the original "trick" question was about the first Congress in
America, not the first President?
--
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 17:46:32 -0400, Warp wrote:
> but I got the impression that the first time in history that any head of
> state has been given the name "president" was precisely when the USA was
> founded, and the title given to its first president, Washington.
Incorrect. The term "President" was used in the continental congress
prior to the first US President. The point of the question is that the
first national government in the US wasn't what we have now, it was the
continental congress, and the president of the continental congress was
elected by the members of the continental congress (more like a
parliamentary leader election than anything).
The point of the question on QI was to say that there were "presidents"
before the current executive leader of the country because there was
actually a different form of national government here before our current
system. The CC "President" and the current executive office called
"President" have no relation to each other, but that's not relative to
the point of the question.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 15:31:01 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> But it doesn't look like it set up an actual leader.
Correct, it was for all intents and purposes a ceremonial role that had
no real authority.
> It's possible the original "trick" question was about the first Congress
> in America, not the first President?
Bingo. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
