 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] san rrcom> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 22:51:38 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> And, I am sure it worked before, on people more gullible.
I'm sure it had. One of the people who was convinced to pass along
untrue information clearly had given in on the issue.
> 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.
It becomes a question of the value of the thing that's being defended vs.
the cost of fighting the deception. I made the judgment that the value
of the thing being defended was higher than the cost of giving in
(because giving in would mean others could get away with it and devalue
the thing being defended).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9-8-2009 7:47, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 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."
I don't see the difference with my category 3. Then again I have
sometimes difficulty to understand what you exactly mean.
> 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.
Yes indeed. I tried to word it in such a way that it was clear that I
intended to include those.
> 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 hadn't heard of that. Thanks for the link.
> 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.
As I am an atheist, many people would consider anything I say outside of
religion. Other fields include male/female and class differences and the
idea that if anybody be as selfish as possible the whole world would be
better.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> On 9-8-2009 7:47, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> 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."
>
> I don't see the difference with my category 3. Then again I have
> sometimes difficulty to understand what you exactly mean.
>
Ok, I see what you mean. Yeah, they are the same in the case that I
actually mention. However, there is what might be called the "Stockholm
Syndrome" version of the same rule, which states that, on some level,
they know its all delusional BS, but have become so invested in
following it, that giving it up feels like the world will end, and the
consequence of being wrong is both socially too high, and emotionally
too extreme, to accept. That, in the end, its basically become like a
phobia of germs, where elaborate ritual is performed, to avoid the
otherwise non-existent consequences of coming in contact with what is
*not* actually detrimental. It simply *has to be*, or otherwise the
phobia would be a horrible self deception, and that just isn't acceptable.
--
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:
> Let me put it this way: I say I *'know'* something if it is beyond
> reasonable doubt for *me*.
Yes. And when I say I *know* something, it means I believe it, and I have a
reason to believe it. Whether it's actually "true" has to be accessed by
someone other than myself, because I could be mistaken in my reasons for
believing.
I sometimes informally say I "know" something when I really mean I am
strongly convinced I'm right. Unless it's actually true, however, it's not
knowledge. And since it's possible we're all mistaken entirely about the
reality of the universe's existence, it's remotely possible that what we all
have strong justification for believing is indeed not knowledge but mistaken
belief.
> 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.
I'm not just talking about belief in a god. I'm talking (if I remember after
a week's vacation) about the meaning of the word "knowledge."
I'm trying to distinguish the word "knowledge" from "conviction." If you
don't admit there are cases where you can be convinced something is true
that isn't knowledge, i.e., if you think that being strongly convinced of
something is enough to make it "knowledge", then we're just disagreeing
about the word. I feel that making "knowledge" mean "topic about which I'm
strongly convinced regardless of the truth of the referent" just muddles the
word and leaves us with no word that means "something that I believe and is
true."
Bringing arguments about deities into the picture is just muddling the
conversation, because neither side is likely to admit that the other side
might have a justified belief.
> 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.
It depends on how certain you want to be. Of course if we're all brains in a
bottle, then we are all 100% incorrect about the universe.
However, if I'm justified in believing X is true, and X is true, then that's
knowledge. If X is false, that's not knowledge. You wish to muddle the
waters by saying that whether X is true or not is irrelevant.
>> 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?
Irrelevant. If you accept objective reality, there are things that are true
about it and things that aren't, whether you know which is which or not.
>> 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)?
Because the justification and belief can make it so, but the objective
reality defines truth. If you're arguing there is no objective reality at
all, then what is or isn't knowledge is kind of pointless to discuss.
>> 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'?
"Allowed"? Sure. And if he's confident he's Jesus reincarnated, returned
to start the Rapture, he'd be allowed to say he knows it. That doesn't mean
it's true.
> 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.
I think if you're going to claim as true something objective, you should
have justification for that claim that is objective.
> 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.
Category 1 and 2 and 3 are the levels of justification. You can't both be right.
>> 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.
Yes, but you've been unable to express what that is. I have already given
you my definition. What's an example of a difference between being
confident, justifiably confident, and having knowledge? What's the
difference between "I'm convinced because of these reasons" and "I know it",
other than "it's objectively true"?
--
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 16-8-2009 23:57, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> Let me put it this way: I say I *'know'* something if it is beyond
>> reasonable doubt for *me*.
>
> Yes. And when I say I *know* something, it means I believe it, and I
> have a reason to believe it. Whether it's actually "true" has to be
> accessed by someone other than myself, because I could be mistaken in my
> reasons for believing.
>
> I sometimes informally say I "know" something when I really mean I am
> strongly convinced I'm right. Unless it's actually true, however, it's
> not knowledge. And since it's possible we're all mistaken entirely about
> the reality of the universe's existence, it's remotely possible that
> what we all have strong justification for believing is indeed not
> knowledge but mistaken belief.
>
>> 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.
>
> I'm not just talking about belief in a god. I'm talking (if I remember
> after a week's vacation) about the meaning of the word "knowledge."
>
> I'm trying to distinguish the word "knowledge" from "conviction." If you
> don't admit there are cases where you can be convinced something is true
> that isn't knowledge, i.e., if you think that being strongly convinced
> of something is enough to make it "knowledge", then we're just
> disagreeing about the word. I feel that making "knowledge" mean "topic
> about which I'm strongly convinced regardless of the truth of the
> referent" just muddles the word and leaves us with no word that means
> "something that I believe and is true."
>
> Bringing arguments about deities into the picture is just muddling the
> conversation, because neither side is likely to admit that the other
> side might have a justified belief.
>
>> 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.
>
> It depends on how certain you want to be. Of course if we're all brains
> in a bottle, then we are all 100% incorrect about the universe.
>
> However, if I'm justified in believing X is true, and X is true, then
> that's knowledge. If X is false, that's not knowledge. You wish to
> muddle the waters by saying that whether X is true or not is irrelevant.
>
>>> 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?
>
> Irrelevant. If you accept objective reality, there are things that are
> true about it and things that aren't, whether you know which is which or
> not.
>
>>> 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)?
>
> Because the justification and belief can make it so, but the objective
> reality defines truth. If you're arguing there is no objective reality
> at all, then what is or isn't knowledge is kind of pointless to discuss.
>
>>> 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'?
>
> "Allowed"? Sure. And if he's confident he's Jesus reincarnated,
> returned to start the Rapture, he'd be allowed to say he knows it. That
> doesn't mean it's true.
>
>> 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.
>
> I think if you're going to claim as true something objective, you should
> have justification for that claim that is objective.
>
>> 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.
>
> Category 1 and 2 and 3 are the levels of justification. You can't both
> be right.
>
>>> 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.
>
> Yes, but you've been unable to express what that is. I have already
> given you my definition. What's an example of a difference between being
> confident, justifiably confident, and having knowledge? What's the
> difference between "I'm convinced because of these reasons" and "I know
> it", other than "it's objectively true"?
I think that if I answer all your points separately I would be repeating
myself too many times, so let's just do it once.
My definition was given before as: beyond reasonable doubt.
So we have both given our definition, we both feel that that should be
clear and we both think that the definition of the other has too many
holes. Seems to show to me that we use different standards. ;)
About the objective reality. Sure, it must exist. I am living in one and
so are you. Only, neither of those two need to coincide with the
objective objective reality. The reason being that before we can agree
on what objectively true is we need to agree on the rules to define what
is objective. I am pretty sure we would not agree on those. And above
that is another meta level...
The reason for bringing it deities is that it make the point clearer, at
least that is what I think. For me it is simple, no god (in the
conventional) sense exist. As I said that is category 3. There is no way
for me to come to any other conclusion nor is there anything anybody can
say that would instil any doubt in me. Hence 'beyond reasonable doubt'
i.e. absolute truth and fully justified to use words like 'know' and
'knowledge'. That I know that there are other people just as confident
as I am about the inverse is, for me, irrelevant. Simply a matter of
different objective realities.
I am confident about a lot of other stuff, but my life would be the same
if it turned out not to be so.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am Mon, 03 Aug 2009 14:13:18 -0500 schrieb David H. Burns:
> Darren New wrote:
>
>> Brain damage:
>> The man who mistook his wife for a hat
>
> Very interesting book. All of the author's (Oliver Sacks) books, that I
> have read,
> are well worth reading.
Definitely!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
