Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Delano

Ideas

Recommended Posts

I have always enjoyed talking about ideas. Although recently I have realized that I want to convince my opponent that my position is correct. I am surprisingly, at least to me, not trying to convince them they are wrong .

I don't think it is possible for any opinions to be wrong. The real issues is understanding the assumptions or beliefs. Since the opinion is based on beliefs and assumptions.

I would say this is true of any belief. So for me there isn't any knowledge or truths.

Science to me is a belief system. And while it is rigorous and does have checks and balances it has flaws. It's major stumbling block is its arrogance and close mindedness. Granted this may not be true for all scientist and I may be assuming this incorrectly.

Most scientist are atheist. The more scientific position would be agnostic. Which may be related to the word ignorant. To say you don't know is actually more scientific or at least more open minded. I think Socrates had it right, when he said he doesn't know. Which means you haven't stopped thinking. Once you assume you are right, things will at some point go horribly wrong. Simply because you are unaware and also unprepared for the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is why I like meta-thinking. Which is thinking about your thinking. It is fascinating to discover your deep seated beliefs. Which if you make any progress, will likely lead to becoming more self aware. I do believe that it is important to see your deep seated beliefs about the world and yourself. Although I wouldn't suggest doing so. I also believe it is important to be self delusional. Simply because seeing the truth isn't likely to make you happy. There aren't that many happy philosophers. The happiest people I have met seem blissfully unaware, perhaps they are blissfully unconcerned.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Opinions about how one feels about something can't be wrong they are opinions:  "I thought Madea's Family Reunion was a great play"

 

Opinions about facts can and often are wrong: "That big woman who played Madea is an excellent actress"

 

I'm not sure why you would describe "science" as arrogant and closed minded.  Science is the exact opposite.  I know of know other "belief system" that will drop an earlier belief the minute someone demonstrates it to be wrong.

 

Del I think you get into trouble trying to compare religion with science.  They are two very different things. 

 

Christianity, is based upon pure faith.  Either you believe or you don't. 

 

Sure ignorance is bliss.  It would be nice to believe that if I blow myself up, along with some innocent by standers, that I'll have 72 virgins waiting to spend eternity with me.

 

I have no such comfort. 

 

In a perverse way, I envy those suicide guys, so absolute their beliefs.  Then again I'd probably request 36 virgins, and 36 with a lot of experience...

 

Del, I guess you don't believe there is anything wrong with the beliefs of those suicide bombers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy - Your last sentence gets to the heart of what I mean. My beliefs are mine and my opinions need not be right. That's the whole point, nobody thinks their beliefs could be wrong. If you take religion is world view who says ah you are right I haven't A clue. No in any disagreement the underlying belief is, if I can just get this person to see the truth. Not maybe they are right. I once decided to try and understand someone's presentation. Instead of picking the bits that matched my beliefs. I assumed it was all correct and I tried to follow it. Its an interesting mental and social exercise.

There is a group of philosophers and mathematicians that believe that numbers are an invention of the human mind. There are some very interesting philosophy about what is the nature of numbers and hence mathematics. Check out Wikipedia the embodied mind theory. Do you believe numbers were created or discovered. O am guessing you would sat discovered I would say created since it fits mu philosophy better.

It is human nature to discount anything we either don't believe in it don't understand.

We use mathematics and statistics to check the soundness of an idea. What do we use to check the soundness of mathematics.

Religion and science are quite similar. Except we start with the ideal and then live life according to it. In science we look at life and try to find the theory.

I should clarify what I mean about beliefs and conclusions. You can make a statement that is logically true, but factually false. Men are taller than women, John is a man Joan is a women, so John is taller than Joan.

Listen to atheistic scientist discuss religion. They say how can people believe this, we aren't in the dark ages. Science can not answer all our questions. The question about meaning or existence can better be understood using religion. Science is quite dismissive of anything it can't quantify. Can you name any current scientist who believes in the occult, no they would be ridiculed. About a subject their colleagues are ignorant about. However if you were to look at the scientists and philosophers before the age of reason or pre industrialization you would see a marked contrast. Newtown was the last magician/scientist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Del is my last sentence was actually rhetorical in nature, but since it gets to the heart of what you mean.  Would you mind answering it? Is there anything wrong with suicide bombers killing themselves and others in the name of their religion?

 

I'll check out "embodied mind theory"

 

Humans even discount things they believe in wholeheartedly,

 

One uses mathematics to check the soundness of mathematics.

 

Your distinction of Religion and Science makes them sound like opposites to me. :-)

 

Del, "Men are taller than women, John is a man Joan is a women, so John is taller than Joan."  This statement is true, logical, and factual if you meant "All" Men which is implied by the way you worded the question.

 

Agreed science certainly can not answer all our questions -- indeed it seems preoccupied with generating more questions than answers. 

 

Newton may have been one of the smartest people to walk the earth in recorded history but his knowledge of the universe pales in comparison to a modern PhD. studied in the subject. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting exchange.    Old people are set in their ways.  I am old.  Therefore, I am set in my ways. Being set in my ways makes me opinionated.  That's logic. My reason for being opinionated,  in my opinion,  is because of my beliefs.  I come to this conclusion because  most of these opinions are stored in my head and it's like they just manifest themselves through my expressing them, leading or - misleading me to think that what is stored in my mind is innate knowledge  - or a knowing.  This could be the avenue of self delusion.  But many time my opinions rather being grounded in fact, are intuitive and are later proven to be true and I don't think this is an experience that is unique to me.

 

Then there is the pit fall of specious arguments.  These are superficial contentions that make sense, but don't hold up. 

 

All of this is mind boggling because it boils down to - who knows anything for sure. One person's truth is another one's falsehood. What we call chaos might be order in another environment. A fact is only an explanation of what we are aware of, not of what we don't know. Studies and research may contain the truth, but not the whole truth. 

 

Life is an ongoing mystery and, as Troy says, each answer spawns a question.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on their beliefs there is nothing illogical about suicide bombers. I am bit a cultural or religious elitist do I can't judge their actions However I would not be s interested in being a suicide bombers. But culturally I wouldn't judge them.

Actually you'd be better if using philosophy to check mathematics. Which is why the really interesting questions like are numbers created or discovered it actually philosophical. There is a philosophy of mathematics and mathematical philosophy. Not being a mathematician I wm interested in the former.

Logically it is true but not factual. Since some women are taller than men.

I would disagree with you there,

I would say Newtown is the biggest known mind. I read one maybe two biographies. He has a pretty impressive resume. He us the beginning of the scientific method, he developed a branch of mathematics, he did work on optics, color theory gravitation and he ws the Treasurer of England. Can you name any treasurer that's created a branch of mathematics.

There should be handful since there are lots of Ph.D. granted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess that is the fundamental difference between what you and I believe Del.  I believe the behavior of these suicide bombers is reprehensible and wrong. 

 

You seem unwilling to commit either way in describing the behavior.  That is cool, but it is a profound and fundamental difference in our belief systems.

 

Those suicide bombers don't corner the market because I also feel the behavior of the US in many occasions is far worse.  I believe some of my personal behavior is wrong from time to time.

 

I think a definition of what is right and wrong is required to avoid complete and utter chaos in the world.

 

Del your "logic" analogy is muddling your argument because you are not expressing it properly.  For example'

 

"Some men are taller than women.  John is a man Joan is a women, so John is taller than Joan"

 

So I agree it is a fact Joan could be taller than John and the statement is logical.  Again this is different that what you wrote the first time.

 

You mus-understood my statement about Newton.  I said he was a smart person -- one of the smartest, so I agree with you there.  However what he knew and understood about the world pales in comparison with what a PhD knows in 2013. 

 

Newton probably never conceptualized the Standard Model of Particle Physics, know to every 1st college student.  He never envisioned Special Relativity know by even people with a passing interest in science.  Sure Newton is smarter but he knew FAR less than what people know today.

 

Like a caveman looking at the star filled sky reasoning that they must be Gods -- never understanding that they were simply other Suns unimaginably far away...

 

Cynique do you think that old people become set in their ways or those people were always like that, even in there youth? 

 

Perhaps people set in there ways live longer... they take less risks, never deal with the stress of challenging their own beliefs, never stray far from home, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can not say what is wrong for someone else unless we share the same belief system.

Judge not less you be judged is my motto. The moment I say someones actions are wrong. I am assuming I know more than they do. Which is not something I am comfortable saying.

Newton's ideas have remained in place for more than two centuries. And in the macro level they are still valid.

I would say your position is similar to slave owners. They see tjrir slaves as animals or children. I am not prepared to embrace that philosophy. It is very dangerous to judge a different culture or even a different period without understanding it. I would also say that it is next to impossible to objectively judge anything external to yourself. Furthermore I would say that it is very difficult to judge yourself objectively.

You may have misunderstood my position. i said it is not something I would choose. I remember once I heard a Muslim cleric philosopher speak. I was struck by the beauty and the elegance of the ideas. Not all Muslims believe suicide bombers are right. I'll ask my friend who is a Muslim what he thinks.

The logical statement is not could be taller it would be taller. If you accept the premise you have to accept the conclusion that follows from it.

The ability to work out gravitation is quite tricky. I would say gravity is not really understood even now. Also you are talking about a field that has had several big minds working on it in tandem. Newton was notorious for working alone. So you are comparing a man to a group. Also there are very few people that have advanced mathematics as much as Newton single handedly. If I am mistaken please let me know what scientist you believe has done so.

They major difference between you and I, is that I do not feel the need to make moral or even ethical pronouncements. I don't feel qualified to do so even though it is merely my opinion. The reason being is that puts you on a slippery slope

I think everyone needs to arrive at their own truth not mine.

You are clearly more practical perhaps even more dogmatic than I am. I have very strong opinions but there are merely that not edicts laws or even parables.

I guess I would ask you why it is so important to have really defined opinions of others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Religion and science sometimes share the belief that their works view is the only proper way of irientating yourself in the world. This is incredibly arrogant.

Personally a fund that mist scientists dismiss any thing that can be quantitatively verified. Which strikes me as absurd since the same science can't tell where a particle us located. Or that they dismissed the ether as being superstitious. Yet they can not account for 80 percent if the universe without relying on a fudge using dark better and dark energy. There are things we don't know and there may be things that we can never know. My position allows me to accept that premise.

The reason I started thus thread is that my concept if reality is being challenged and I am developing a more philosophical ethereal worldview.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fund most of your comments thought provoking. Except when you say some thing is obvious it self evident. There is very little that us obvious or self evident to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Del in order for people to live together we HAVE to make judgements about the behavior of others. You just can't have people running around all willy-nilly doing what ever strikes their fancy and expect people to live harmoniously together.

 

If some thug comes into your home with the intention of slaughtering your children and raping your wife as you watch.  I suspect you'd would disapprove of his intentions, why?

 

I'm not asking you to judge anyone across space and time like slave holders 200 years ago, I'm talking about today.  You seem unwilling to recognize that people do wrong things and we should call them for what they are WRONG.

 

Del understand: No one is disputing Newton's extraordinary brilliance.  However he did not conceptualize much of what we know about the universe today.  Even his gravitational equations, though terrific for it's time, were discovered to be wrong when it failed to calculate the orbit of mercury correctly.  But if he were alive today with modern knowledge who knows what he could have come up with.

 

You continue completely mus-characterizing science.  You seem to have an ax to grind.  For example, you wrote "[most] scientists dismiss any thing that can be quantitatively verified".  Just because they can't quantify something does not mean they dismiss it.  Nothing is dismissed until it is proven wrong. 

 

There are multiple theories describing what existed before the big bang, a scientist can never dismiss any of these theories because they can never be proven wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes,Troy,  I tend to believe that their core personalities determine whether or not a person sticks to their convictions. I don't necessaryily agree that a person who is prudent and careful and oblivious is someone who outlives a feisty individual who did it their way. Luck and good genes also play a major role in longevity. Being true to oneself can also be a stress reliever. The wisdom that hopefully comes with age is the great equalizer because it involves a realization of what's really important in life.

 

I agree that for the common good, lawless people do have to be judged to preserve and protect society. In our individual interactions we can question people's motives and disapprove of their actions but a person is entitled to their beliefs even if they are fanatical or detrimental and contrary to our own. We cannot impose our beliefs on others. We can just resist and protest when they aggressively act on their beliefs. We can't demand that people act in a way that we deem "right". We can just reject them when they act in a way we deem "wrong".

 

America thinks democracy is right and should be a form of government that all countries in embrace. Who is to say that those who disagree with this are wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me not judging people does not hamper either the judicial or the criminal justice system.

Thwre is no need for me to judge anyone's actions.

How can science prove something unquantifiable?

There are certain things that don't lend themselves to testing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Del, WE make up the criminal justice system and the laws.  It is made up of and by people, like you and I.

 

Now you personally may opt out and refuse to judge someone.  But it is good everyone is not like you because our society could not function otherwise. 

 

Del I never wrote science can prove something that unquantifiable. I wrote they do not dismiss it. There is a big difference. In fact the example, of what happened before the Big Bang illustrates my point. 

 

Of course there are things that don't lend themselves to testing.  Seriously, Del, I thought I made that clear with the Big Bang example:  There is no way anyone can perform an experiment before there was space or time.  As a result, any ideas about what happened prior to that can not be proven (or dismissed as wrong).

 

 

Cynique, personally I don't think America's form of government should be forced on any other group of people.  In fact I think any efforts by our leadership to do this in foreign countries is just so that we can exploit the workforce, resources and open more McDonalds and sell more Coca-cola.

 

Given your second paragraph you understand the perspective I've expressed.

 

Further, we ALL make judgements of other people (whether we want to acknowledge those judgements or not).  We make friends and select spouses based upon a wide range of judgments -- some of which may are probably unconscious.

 

These judgements are not only necessary for a functioning society they are necessary for our own happiness.

 

Of course I understand that everyone is unique and we all judge differently.  As a result we must also make compromises and tradeoffs on our individual judgements. 

 

Our ability to make these tradeoff is key to the success of our society, marriages and our individual ability to make it in this world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I came across the following quote.

We might greet with skepticism, perhaps ridicule, the mystic's claim that imagination is the path to happiness. But imagination is not alien to reason. How else do scientific discoveries occur except when scientists imagine that something is true - the hypothesis - and then set about to prove it?"

If we make the laws then why do we have the inequities in the criminal justice system. We don't even elect the people who run the judicial system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are saying being judgemental is good for society. This position leads to intolerance or the inability to accept difference. I would wager more harm is done by judemental people in following their beliefs. Your position is more closely aligned with the KKK than mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Society deals with being social. Since man is a gregarious animal, he interacts and communicates with others.  Man is also tribal.  So judgments occur in the course of like bonding with like. Maybe this is not an ideal situation but it is a natural one and it contributes to the survival of a species.  This is the way of the world.  Nobody ever said we live in Utopia where diversity is celebrated. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL! the KKK!?  Oh Brother!  It seems Del you are far less tolerant of my opinions that I am of yours.

 

To directly answer your questions:

If we make the laws then why do we have the inequities in the criminal justice system?
Because the system is run by people and therefore is not perfect.  Inequities and other injustices will occur. 

So you are saying being judgemental is good for society?
Del I originally spoke about opinions, you introduced "judging" and turned the conversation to one of being "judgmental".  It is hard to carry on a meaningful conversation if you keep changing the context to suit your argument.

 

No one is talking about being "judgmental" in the manner in which you seem to being trying to imply now.  I believe people should be free to whatever they want to do.  In that sense I'm pretty non-judgmental". 

 

However if someone wants to rape a child, blow-up an innocent bystander.  I think we should negatively evaluate the behavior and move to prevent it.  There are some behaviors that are unacceptable in a society and it is up to the members of that society to make a determination what those behaviors are.  Is this an opinion that you reject Del?  If so, why?

 

 

It is interesting however that Cynique is quite able to both interpret and elaborate on what I'm saying.  Maybe just read what she writes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy I am evaluating your position not saying whether ot is correct. The statement I was attempting is ad follows. You and the KKK don't share mu beliefs about being non judging. So in that dense you are closer in your world views about others. Than either of you are with me.

I have not said that your view point nor the KKK is wrong. I have said it is not mine. However you could imply that because most people assume they are right.

You may have missed the point about the law. You are talking interpretation of the law. You said we create the laws, no some of us create laws. It was legal to treat people like property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Del you should review you course work in set theory.  If I and the KKK do not share your beliefs; you can not then conclude that I and KKK share anything in common.  All three sets, you, me and the KKK, could still share nothing in common.

 

Again the difference between you and I is that I'm willing to say the KKK is wrong, in their views about Black people.

 

No I guess I did not understand your point about the law.  Sure it was legal to treat people as property.  I believe that law was WRONG too, I imagine you have no such opinion -- perfering to sit on the fence unwilling to commit to any view point as if all view points on the matter are somehow valid. 

 

It is not clear to me why you are unwilling to call a thing right or wrong, particularly when it is so obvious. 

 

It seems to me that you don't really believe anything is wrong. Further those that choose to say something is wrong, is taking a position of moral superiority of others.  Would that be an accurate assessment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I www talking about was logic, I think set theory and Venn diagrams are a subset of logic.

You think there are correct ways of doing things and some people are mistaken in their views and hence their characters. I don't believe that simply because I can't objectively judge that. Morals are accepted local practices. So they aren't universal. The KKK would say that black people are inferior and have defects in their character. You would say that suicide bombers are wrong. I would say I can't judge someone's actions. So this is what I mean when I say your position is closer to the KKK. Since you share the same viewpoint that somethings are objectively wrong. That is not my position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Del you are talking in absolutes I never implied any such thing.  Of course what is accepted as "right" varies from place to place, time to time, and even within the same person from one minute to the next.

 

But there are something that would most likely be perceived by 99% of all Earthlings as wrong -- essentially universal.  There may not be many things but their are some.  Indeed there should be some as we share enough in common as humans for this to be true.

 

Del you are raising children. Part of raising children includes educating them, instilling values, teaching them right from wrong, even providing spiritual guidance.  Do you to let them run amok, allowing them to do anything they want at any time without any form of guidance? 

 

I submit to you that you can not raise children who can successfully engage in society unless to teach them the difference between what is right and wrong in the context of the culture in which they live.

 

Part of the reason our culture is slipping is because our standards of behavior have slipped.  Too much is acceptable.  I'm not saying everyone should, or can live, a pristine life, but very little of what we do is frowned upon.  No one wants to "judge".  How can we?  We have no standards we are willing to enforce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Del communicating with you would be much easier if you did two things; (1) answer questions when posed; and (2) Be direct.  What I mean by direct is rather than telling me what is not useful tell me what is useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy the real issue for me is that you feel your beliefs are facts. Once you assume that you are right you stop thinking. Or at your thinking is constrained. I'll go back and check, but I asked you the following question. Isn't set theory a subset of logic. I suggested you look st the embodied mind theory, no response. You are implying that I don't have the fundamentals to argue certain points.

This is the difference between us I can discuss s topic without the need for the other person to share my views. Since I am interested in original thought not just rehashing what I know. My objective is to have an open mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy I'll ask you a direct question why do you assume your beliefs are correct. I think most people assume they are right in their assumptions which is fine. The problem is this doesn't always lead to sensible conclusions even if they are valid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember you were using statistics to prove your point. I systematically explained why your conclusion was wrong. I fund it fascinating when people use science or mathematics to support their argument without understanding the science they are quoting.

What I said is that science is dismissive about fields that don't lend themselves to quantification. Luke religion and astrology. Granted this isn't all scientist. But it isn't an open minded position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy I am not bring judgmental, because I am not sating tour position is wrong. When you talk about behaviors being wrong. What I am saying is more about beliefs and attitudes. However from the suicide bombers their position is the correct one.

You day we make the laws, then you day other people run the system. No other people also make the laws. So for me your response lacks internal consistency. In my opinion you are fitting the world to your beliefs, because there is dome objective reality and universal truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Del you continue to draw conclusions that do not follow logically from either what I actually wrote or you have misinterpreted from what I've written.

 

You have accused me of believing that my opinions are fact the assuming that I stop thinking at that point.  Again this does not follow from my behavior or writings; why would I bother running a discussion forum, for the better part of 20 years, if I was not interested in thinking about ideas?

 

I have no idea what set theory and the embodied mind theory have in connection with each other or why you are trying to connect the two.  I have simply not had time to investigate embodied mind theory sufficiently to have an opinion about it. Which is why I have not commented on the subject yet.

 

"I systematically explained why your conclusion was wrong"  If you can tell me what conclusion of mine you proved wrong that would help.  Honestly, I have no idea what you are talking about.

Del, unless the suicide bomber were coerced or brainwashed, obviously they thought the behavior was right!  I never inquired about their opinion of their behavior.  I asked you YOUR opinion of their behavior, an opinion you refuse to provide for some reason unknown to me.

"In my opinion you are fitting the world to your beliefs..."

 

What?!  I think you have that one backwards.  If anything I try to make my beliefs fit the world. 

 

It might be easier if you rebooted this conversation, stick to a single idea, and stop projecting, what you must apparently believe onto others (at least me).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess that is the fundamental difference between what you and I believe Del.  I believe the behavior of these suicide bombers is reprehensible and wrong. 

 

You seem unwilling to commit either way in describing the behavior.  That is cool, but it is a profound and fundamental difference in our belief systems.

 

Those suicide bombers don't corner the market because I also feel the behavior of the US in many occasions is far worse.  I believe some of my personal behavior is wrong from time to time.

 

I think a definition of what is right and wrong is required to avoid complete and utter chaos in the world.

 

I also do not believe this is what should be done. However what I saying is that the suicide bomber believes this is a correct action. And my question becomes who is right. And how can or should you judge another with your yardsticks. You feel they are wrong they feel they are right. What I am saying if there is an objective true you would say they are right or they would say you are right or some position in the middle. Do you believe killing in war is right, or would you say let the other side slaughter us because we are correct. And different points in history people have chosen one or the other.

So here I am asking you a direct question can you answer them, which is something you are accusing me of doing. I can not explain my position any clearer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The following is a direct quote from you and my resposne.

 

Platinum Level Poster

  • photo-thumb-13.jpg?_r=1382143069
  • Administrators
  • admin.png
  • 2,079 posts
  • LocationHarlem, USA

Posted 21 May 2013 - 10:50 PM

Pioneer your points all ASSUME that there is indeed a spiritual world.  One could easily argue the opposite using your very same reasoning.

 

Del, a horse has a tail but that does not make it a mouse because a mouse has a tail.  That aside what is logical about Astrology?

 

On my 3rd point, if you flipped a coin 100 times and got heads 75 times it would be false for you to say there is a 75% chance of getting heads on a coin toss -- even if you flipped the coin under some tarot or astrologically defined conditions.

 

The reason is the likelihood of me flipping a coin 100 times and getting the same result, without consulting tarot card or astrological charts is very possible.  Sure you can flip the coin 1,000 time and get marginally better results but it would still not be enough data.

 

It would be better If you got 10,000 people to flip the coin 1,000 times under the tarot conditions and different set of 10,000 people to flip a coin under random conditions. If you compared the results between the two sets of people under those conditions and found a significant variance you might have something.  Especially if someone else was able to reproduce your experiment and get the same results. 

 

You can't do this by yourself.

Founder & Webmaster of AALBC.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was my reply.

 

Veteran Member

Posted 22 May 2013 - 06:47 AM

Troy You said philosophy and science are mutually exclusive. i mentioned logic, which is both an element in science and philosophy. You have conveniently forgotten to answer that question.
O had to look through two of my statistics books and two of Adtrological Research books, both of which use stastical analysis. What you have in your example is a binomial distribution. If you got those results. You would assume it wasn't a fair coin. While that wouldn't tell you anything about the population it would tell you something about that particular coin. I could tell you why your statement isn't valid but the fundamental errors show a lack if understanding about statistics and statistical analysis.
Normally we disagree and I'll debate the point, but not in this instance.
Delano

Veteran Member

Posted 22 May 2013 - 06:58 AM

Troy if you are flipping a coin 1000 times you would only need two people two determine if there is a significant difference. What you are talking about here is am F test or F Distribution. In fact you could have ad fee as 100 coin tosses. So you would be wrong
I could do this experiment with two people flipping a coin 100 times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, one thing at a time to answer your question:

 

Is Set theory a subset of logic?

Del I'm not sure what you are trying to get at or where this question came from, so I reviewed this conversation. you wrote:

 

You [Troy] and the KKK don't share mu [sic] beliefs about being non judging. So in that dense [sic] you are closer in your world views about others. Than either of you are with me.

 

In reaction I wrote:


"Del you should review you [sic] course work in set theory.  If I and the KKK do not share your beliefs; you can not then conclude that I and KKK share anything in common.  All three sets, you, me and the KKK, could still share nothing in common."

 

This is where set theory was introduced.  After reviewing what I wrote I stand by the statement. I will take it a step further; your statement about me and the KKK was indeed illogical.

 

Is this the actual basis of your repeated question?

 

"What I www [sic] talking about was logic, I think set theory and Venn diagrams are a subset of logic."

"I'll go back and check, but I asked you the following question. Isn't set theory a subset of logic."

"I will ask you a question again is set theory a subset of Logic?"

Why are you demanding an answer to a question to something I did not assert and that you can easily look up yourself?  If it is a rhetorical question you could simply supply the answer and advance your point (whatever it may be) instead of beating me over the head with it.

 

Sheesh Del went back to May to dig something a factually inaccurate statement of mine?!  I could look up your flawed argument against disproving the Nyquist theorem as it relates to reproducing frequencies in the audio range too.  But it would not occur to me to use that old mistake in this argument, for you've provided enough material right here... 

 

--------------------------------

 

At the end of the day the simple point remains: I believe there are some things that considered wrong by so many people, across cultures and time, that they could be considered universally wrong.

 

Just because people engage in a behavior that does not mean that even they believe it is right.  Even a sociopath knows killing an innocent person is wrong.

 

Finally we as a society have to determine what is right or wrong behavior, for ourselves and others, and attempt to enforce those beliefs.  These beliefs and values will change from culture to culture and from time to time and that is fine, normal, for we learn new things all the time.

 

It seems to me Del that you are caught up in the "judging" aspect and believe in moral relativism where no one is right or wrong and all behavior should be tolerated.  A position that might be cool philosophically but one that I disagree with in real world practice quite strongly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is that I ad am individual do not want yo day what id right for others. And since I am not part of the judicial or executive branch I feel no need to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In your response you said most people would agree so you could consider it universally true. This statement doesn't make sense. It's I'd like saying it id mostly universally true, or that's absolutely true most of the time.

You could say I am being overly critical or you can tell me what dictionary you are using.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...