This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

I need a definition of faith that is precise.

#261AynRandySavagePosted 1/20/2013 9:22:30 PM(edited)
cyclonekruse posted...

Strangely enough (or not), induction/deduction is the one where I think you distorted things the most.


You claimed that a logical argument where the conclusion was only probable, but not necessarily true was "deductive" there's not much leeway there.




Stubborn, undereducated, only argues to win, out of control, close-minded, argues to save face, egotistical, confused, hypocritical, a sophist (and more that I don't remember I'm sure) are all ways you've described me. But keep believing you don't offer your opinion about me.


I'd say about one third of those are actually ways you've described yourself. The other third are people in the stack exchange, and the final third are my characterizations of your arguments themselves. Now granted, I have probably described you as all of the above elsewhere, but only because it was necessary to explain to people why normal logical arguments aren't effective on you.


Let's assume for a second that we have some fundamentally different axioms. Just because, let's further assume my axioms are atypical. Now, given that, you would expect us to have some major disagreements for which there is no reconciliation regardless of how pristine or poor our logic is.


What are these "fundamentally different axioms?" then?

Also, if I truly am a sophist, then it's likely that I've likewise persuaded a lot of people in engage with, though wrongly. So pointing out how persuasive we are seems a non-starter.


Just being a sophist doesn't mean you're persuasive. The fact that you're labelled as a sophist actually indicates that you're not good at it.


http://www.cfh.ufsc.br/~principi/p122-5.pdf

It's trivially easy to find such papers.


Well first of all, this paper seems to rely upon reinterpreting the preface paradox so that it's not actually the preface paradox, but second of all, it in a very roundabout way, supports my original contention that judgments about propositions can come from multiple different, and sometimes inconsistent sources of evidence. If you agree with this author, that should put the nail in the coffin of your arguments about probability


This paper argues that a subjective probability of 0.51 is not sufficient to suggest belief. Though the paper does say it's necessary.


Well that doesn't help you at all. Your objection only works if you can divorce belief from knowledge. Arguing about what constitutes belief in a Lockean sense is besides the point. What matters is that whatever IS sufficient to suggest belief, its enough to seem to be knowledge from a subjective point-of-view.


You're avoiding the issue that you use subtext (and sometimes not even bothering with that) to share your opinions of me.


Well I don't. If I have to give what you call my "personal opinion" on you, I do it without mincing words.
#262cyclonekrusePosted 1/20/2013 11:22:29 PM
From: AynRandySavage | #261
You claimed that a logical argument where the conclusion was only probable, but not necessarily true was "deductive" there's not much leeway there.

No, as I recall, I claimed your argument was deductive. But that's only because I misunderstood your argument.

I'd say about one third of those are actually ways you've described yourself. The other third are people in the stack exchange, and the final third are my characterizations of your arguments themselves.

Only a few posts ago you said it would behoove me to be more open-minded. That wasn't any of those things. Nor are most of the others. You're just distancing yourself from them so as not to admit that you offer your opinion in contrast to your dictum to not offer one's personal opinion.

What are these "fundamentally different axioms?" then?

That a greater than 50% judgment of likelihood that a proposition is true entails belief. That belief is indistinguishable from knowledge subjectively. That it is acceptable to cavalierly dismiss consistency as a requirement for rational belief systems.

I perhaps shouldn't call these "axioms." Just very fundamental differences that lead to very divergent opinions on the preface paradox, the lottery paradox, and epistemology, among other things.

Just being a sophist doesn't mean you're persuasive. The fact that you're labelled as a sophist actually indicates that you're not good at it.

On the contrary. A sophist is one whose arguments are superficially persuasive but whose logic is deficient when you delve deeper. So to uninitiated people, a sophist would be quite convincing.

Well first of all, this paper seems to rely upon reinterpreting the preface paradox so that it's not actually the preface paradox, but second of all, it in a very roundabout way, supports my original contention that judgments about propositions can come from multiple different, and sometimes inconsistent sources of evidence. If you agree with this author, that should put the nail in the coffin of your arguments about probability

Yes, most claimed resolutions to paradoxes do tend to rely on interpreting them in a novel way. Doesn't necessarily mean it's false, though. And of course you can get conflicting evidence for a proposition. Harry will accuse Sally and Sally will accuse Harry of stealing the cookie from the cookie jar. I'm not seeing where the rest of your statement comes in, though.

Well that doesn't help you at all. Your objection only works if you can divorce belief from knowledge. Arguing about what constitutes belief in a Lockean sense is besides the point. What matters is that whatever IS sufficient to suggest belief, its enough to seem to be knowledge from a subjective point-of-view.

It shows that, contrary to your claims, not everyone agrees that a 0.51 judgment of probability entails belief. Therefore you were wrong about something.

And no, it's not the case that whatever is sufficient to suggest belief is enough to be knowledge from a subjective point of view. Belief need not be justified. Or it need not be justified in a way that would raise it to the level of knowledge. I might believe for reasons that don't epistemically justify belief and further I may understand that that's the case.

Well I don't. If I have to give what you call my "personal opinion" on you, I do it without mincing words.

No. You try to hide behind other things (though you don't always hide). Such as other people's claims. You agree with them and post them (often) but you don't admit to agreeing with them.
---
Locke: "Why do you find it so hard to believe?" || Jack "Why do you find it so easy?!" ||
Locke: "It's never been easy!"
#263AynRandySavagePosted 1/21/2013 10:19:42 AM
cyclonekruse posted...

No, as I recall, I claimed your argument was deductive. But that's only because I misunderstood your argument.


You misunderstood the key difference between deductive and inductive arguments if you thought I was making a deductive argument when the conclusion was probable, rather than logically necessary.




Only a few posts ago you said it would behoove me to be more open-minded. That wasn't any of those things.


It's been bandied about in a few SE and Phil Forum topics.

Nor are most of the others.

So you denied that you were stubborn, couldn't control yourself, and had a bizarre upbringing?


That a greater than 50% judgment of likelihood that a proposition is true entails belief.


I just believe that the Lockean system is useful, I'm not exactly beholden to thinking that a 51% judge of probability entails belief.

I perhaps shouldn't call these "axioms." Just very fundamental differences that lead to very divergent opinions on the preface paradox, the lottery paradox, and epistemology, among other things.


My different opinions are a result of understanding the logic of the preface and lottery paradoxes

On the contrary. A sophist is one whose arguments are superficially persuasive but whose logic is deficient when you delve deeper. So to uninitiated people, a sophist would be quite convincing.


A sophist is also a person who just relies entirely on superficial logic, particularly arguing about semantics. Given the reaction of the people in the Stack Exchange topic, I doubt that they felt you've ever managed to be very persuasive. You could ask them if you'd like though.




Yes, most claimed resolutions to paradoxes do tend to rely on interpreting them in a novel way. Doesn't necessarily mean it's false, though.


It means that it's not interpreting the preface paradox.




It shows that, contrary to your claims, not everyone agrees that a 0.51 judgment of probability entails belief. Therefore you were wrong about something.


I didn't say that a .51 judgment of probability entailed belief. I assumed that it did for the sake of pointing out the link between belief and knowledge.

Belief need not be justified. Or it need not be justified in a way that would raise it to the level of knowledge. I might believe for reasons that don't epistemically justify belief and further I may understand that that's the case.

If you didn't think that, you wouldn't believe.


No. You try to hide behind other things (though you don't always hide). Such as other people's claims. You agree with them and post them (often) but you don't admit to agreeing with them.


Because my opinion of what they said isn't relevant. If you don't like that people hold your logic and education in low esteem, figure out why they think that. If you don't care, why complain about it?
#264cyclonekrusePosted 1/21/2013 12:31:32 PM
AynRandySavage posted...
You misunderstood the key difference between deductive and inductive arguments if you thought I was making a deductive argument when the conclusion was probable, rather than logically

And if I recall I didn't think you were suggesting the conclusion was only probable.

It's been bandied about in a few SE and Phil Forum topics.

That could be. But you endorsed the opinion here and offered it as your own. You didn't say it came from somebody else. It shouldn't be this hard for you to say "yeah I inserted my opinion into the discussion quite a few times didn't I?" The evidence is clear.

So you denied that you were stubborn, couldn't control yourself, and had a bizarre upbringing?

Let's add not knowing the definition of "most" to your list of errors.

I just believe that the Lockean system is useful, I'm not exactly beholden to thinking that a 51% judge of probability entails belief.

Going by your past words you are. But you're backpedaling now.

My different opinions are a result of understanding the logic of the preface and lottery paradoxes

It's not as if understanding the logic of the paradoxes is difficult. But what you're suggesting here is that anyone who doesn't want to give up the notion that rational beliefs agglomerate doesn't understand the logic of the paradoxes. So once again you're saying you know more than several experts. But your logic here is poor. There are several ways to resolve the apparent contradictions that those paradoxes lead to. One is to deny agglomeration. Others involve how we interpret "believe" or how we handle evidence coming from different sources. None of these is inherently illogical. So clearly understanding the logic of the paradoxes doesn't necessitate coming to the same conclusion you did.

A sophist is also a person who just relies entirely on superficial logic, particularly arguing about semantics. Given the reaction of the people in the Stack Exchange topic, I doubt that they felt you've ever managed to be very persuasive. You could ask them if you'd like though.

Semantics are sometimes very important to hash out as you yourself have argued. Your arguments/points are becoming worse too. I said a sophist would be persuausive to the unintiated--to those who don't understand logic very well (as you're showing yourself to be). Asking logic professors if a supposed sophist's arguments are persuasuve would not do anything to show whether or not the arguments might be persuasive to other people.
---
Locke: "Why do you find it so hard to believe?" || Jack "Why do you find it so easy?!" ||
Locke: "It's never been easy!"
#265AynRandySavagePosted 1/21/2013 12:45:54 PM(edited)
cyclonekruse posted...

And if I recall I didn't think you were suggesting the conclusion was only probable.


Really? Where did I say that?

That could be. But you endorsed the opinion here and offered it as your own. You didn't say it came from somebody else.


You're either contradicting yourself or using circular logic. First you said that I was being dishonest because I wasn't offering the above as my opinion. If by "offering it as my own" you mean the what-have-you about subtext, then that just means you're using your conclusion as evidence of your conclusion which is circular.

Let's add not knowing the definition of "most" to your list of errors.


If accept that the above were your own description of yourself, and that the rest were given by other people, then "most" is very appropriate here. As the only "personal opinions" I've given are the words of others or yourself.


Going by your past words you are.


Which words?


It's not as if understanding the logic of the paradoxes is difficult. But what you're suggesting here is that anyone who doesn't want to give up the notion that rational beliefs agglomerate doesn't understand the logic of the paradoxes. So once again you're saying you know more than several experts


No, what I'm saying is that YOU don't understand it, seeing as the people in your citation were using utterly different logic.


Others involve how we interpret "believe" or how we handle evidence coming from different sources. None of these is inherently illogical.

I didn't say it was illogical I said it wasn't the preface paradox because they're starting from different premises than the people who came up with the Paradox in the first place.



Semantics are sometimes very important to hash out as you yourself have argued. Your arguments/points are becoming worse too. I said a sophist would be persuausive to the unintiated--to those who don't understand logic very well (as you're showing yourself to be). Asking logic professors if a supposed sophist's arguments are persuasuve would not do anything to show whether or not the arguments might be persuasive to other people.


The question is whether the people in the Stack Exchange topic thought your arguments would be persuasive to anyone at all, they did not. Thus, you can't claim that they were calling you a sophist in the way that you are. Like I said, why not just ask what they meant? I'm planning on quoting some of your errors in this topic again for their perusal. Moreover, my successes thus far have been among the initiated and uninitiated, thus sophist wouldn't be an appropriate description of me in either case.
#266cyclonekrusePosted 1/21/2013 1:37:18 PM
From: AynRandySavage | #263
It means that it's not interpreting the preface paradox.

How does that follow? How is it so fundamentally different?

I didn't say that a .51 judgment of probability entailed belief. I assumed that it did for the sake of pointing out the link between belief and knowledge.

Bzzt. Wrong:

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/263-religion/63799502
Post #202:

Me: that a subjective assessment of 51% likelihood constitutes belief
You: Yes, that's absolutely true. Formally or informally that entails belief.

Thanks for playing.

If you didn't think that, you wouldn't believe.

So you say. But that hinges on an assumption that I don't share. In order to make your case, you need to argue that any reason for belief is "justification" in a way that would lead to knowledge (at least subjectively).

From: AynRandySavage | #265
I didn't say it was illogical I said it wasn't the preface paradox because they're starting from different premises than the people who came up with the Paradox in the first place.

I think they're just restating the premises for clarity's sake. The paper goes through detail on how X and Y were the premises of the original paradox but why they are unclear and that we ought to use other closely related premises that preserve the spirit of the paradox but are not as problematic. You're welcome to think the author didn't successfully make that case, I suppose, but I'd like to see your reasoning.

Because my opinion of what they said isn't relevant. If you don't like that people hold your logic and education in low esteem, figure out why they think that. If you don't care, why complain about it?

Your opinion might not be relevant but it's still there in the fact that you keep bringing up "other" people's opinions about me. There is a reason you choose to do that. And you wouldn't do it if you disagreed with them. So clearly you share those opinions of me. Like I said, just because you don't "say" something doesn't mean you don't say it. And because you said inserting your opinion is irrelevant (even though that rarely stops you from inserting it anyway) you have to rely on such subtext to insert your opinion without appearing (as) hypocritical.
---
Locke: "Why do you find it so hard to believe?" || Jack "Why do you find it so easy?!" ||
Locke: "It's never been easy!"
#267AynRandySavagePosted 1/21/2013 1:56:58 PM(edited)
cyclonekruse posted...

How does that follow? How is it so fundamentally different?


Read what you posted, the author is reinterpreting belief to mean something entirely different than taking something to be true.


Me: that a subjective assessment of 51% likelihood constitutes belief
You: Yes, that's absolutely true. Formally or informally that entails belief.

Thanks for playing.


Within the framework I was using, that IS absolutely true.

But that hinges on an assumption that I don't share. In order to make your case, you need to argue that any reason for belief is "justification" in a way that would lead to knowledge (at least subjectively).


Nobody can explicitly believe something without thinking they have a reason to believe something, that reason is their justification.


I think they're just restating the premises for clarity's sake. The paper goes through detail on how X and Y were the premises of the original paradox but why they are unclear and that we ought to use other closely related premises that preserve the spirit of the paradox but are not as problematic.


The original premises weren't problematic to begin with, its one of the few instances of philosophical language being very clear. It doesn't get much simpler than "holding something to be the case"


Your opinion might not be relevant but it's still there in the fact that you keep bringing up "other" people's opinions about me. There is a reason you choose to do that. And you wouldn't do it if you disagreed with them. So clearly you share those opinions of me. Like I said, just because you don't "say" something doesn't mean you don't say it. And because you said inserting your opinion is irrelevant (even though that rarely stops you from inserting it anyway) you have to rely on such subtext to insert your opinion without appearing (as) hypocritical.


That doesn't follow. While there is of course a reason I keep bringing them up, there's no reason to believe its for the reason you say.
#268cyclonekrusePosted 1/21/2013 1:56:12 PM
From: AynRandySavage | #265
Really? Where did I say that?

Learn to read. I said I misunderstood what you said. I didn't say you said that.

You're either contradicting yourself or using circular logic. First you said that I was being dishonest because I wasn't offering the above as my opinion. If by "offering it as my own" you mean the what-have-you about subtext, then that just means you're using your conclusion as evidence of your conclusion which is circular.

Actually, those were times when you didn't even bother with subtext. They were honest opinions, I'm sure. But, if you're to be believed, they were irrelevant and shouldn't have been stated. The subtext is just a way for you to try to have it both ways. You admonish me for offering my opinion but then you offer yours under the "guise" of subtext.

If accept that the above were your own description of yourself, and that the rest were given by other people, then "most" is very appropriate here. As the only "personal opinions" I've given are the words of others or yourself.

First, that doesn't make them not-your-opinions. You can share opinions with others, after all. Second, you never said the others were given by other people until lately. You offered them freely yourself at various times. "Most" is very inappropriate here.

Which words?

See above.

No, what I'm saying is that YOU don't understand it, seeing as the people in your citation were using utterly different logic.

If by "different" logic than yours, you meant "better" than yes, I'd agree. But seriously, how is their logic different? Are you saying that you're using paraconsistent logic and they're not? That's possible. They're resisting the idea that believing inconsistent things can be rational. They don't want to resort to paraconsistent logic. Or are you saying they're using different arguments? Because, while true, that isn't different "logic." Mainly just different assumptions. But neither of those cases implies that I don't understand the logic.

And given your numerous non sequitur arguments lately, I'm starting to think maybe this "logic" thing is beyond you.

I didn't say it was illogical I said it wasn't the preface paradox because they're starting from different premises than the people who came up with the Paradox in the first place.

Such as?

The question is whether the people in the Stack Exchange topic thought your arguments would be persuasive to anyone at all, they did not.

Oh, you asked that that specific question, did you?

Thus, you can't claim that they were calling you a sophist in the way that you are. Like I said, why not just ask what they meant?

Because I don't care? It seems more important to you that they think I'm a sophist than it does to me.

I'm planning on quoting some of your errors in this topic again for their perusal. Moreover, my successes thus far have been among the initiated and uninitiated, thus sophist wouldn't be an appropriate description of me in either case.

I think other terms are appropriate descriptions for you. "Wrong a lot" would be one of them.
---
Locke: "Why do you find it so hard to believe?" || Jack "Why do you find it so easy?!" ||
Locke: "It's never been easy!"
#269cyclonekrusePosted 1/21/2013 2:12:39 PM
From: AynRandySavage | #267
Read what you posted, the author is reinterpreting belief to mean something entirely different than taking something to be true.

How so?

Within the framework I was using, that IS absolutely true.

The "whenever it's convenient for me to say so" framework?

Nobody can explicitly believe something without thinking they have a reason to believe something, that reason is their justification.

You can define any reason to believe to be a justification (in the sense that would lead to knowledge). I don't see any reason you'd have to.

Also, I'm not sure if I'd agree with your first statement. Wouldn't it be possible to believe something without reflecting on why they believe it?

The original premises weren't problematic to begin with, its one of the few instances of philosophical language being very clear. It doesn't get much simpler than "holding something to be the case"

You're talking about "belief?" Though it might be true that it doesn't get much simpler than that, that doesn't mean it is itself simple. If it were so clear, then there wouldn't have been debates for hundreds of years trying to pin down just what "holding something to be the case" means. Just as an example, in the papers I've perused, there seems to be much disagreement on the relationship between quantitative belief and belief simpliciter. That is, does holding a high degree of belief mean you hold something to be true (or the case, as you put it here)? As another example, Kant identifies three types of "holding-to-be-true."

I think your false assumption is that being able to offer a definition means you understand that definition fully.

Speculating on my motives won't get you anywhere.

Seems quite the hobby of yours to speculate on my motives.
---
Locke: "Why do you find it so hard to believe?" || Jack "Why do you find it so easy?!" ||
Locke: "It's never been easy!"
#270AynRandySavagePosted 1/21/2013 3:34:53 PM
cyclonekruse posted...
I didn't say you said that.

Actually you didn't even say what you claimed you did here:

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/263-religion/62111784?page=9


But, if you're to be believed, they were irrelevant and shouldn't have been stated.

I've never given what you call "my personal opinion" without good reason. Show me one example where what I've said something that you have previously claimed about yourself that didn't have a reason.



First, that doesn't make them not-your-opinions. You can share opinions with others, after all. Second, you never said the others were given by other people until lately. You offered them freely yourself at various times. "Most" is very inappropriate here.


Prior to showing you the Stack Exchange topic, the only "personal opinions" I've given you were just quoting you. If you think its acceptable to talk about your personality flaws, why I can't I?

But neither of those cases implies that I don't understand the logic.


My initial point was that they were starting from entirely different premises.

Such as?


Their formulation of belief


Oh, you asked that that specific question, did you?


I've asked that question a few times, yes.

Because I don't care? It seems more important to you that they think I'm a sophist than it does to me.


I'm only responding to your protestations on the subject.


I think other terms are appropriate descriptions for you. "Wrong a lot" would be one of them.


That's not a case you've been able to make yet. And given that I've provided evidence that I've been correct more than you, that too would be a better description of you.