MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Principles of Applied Epistemology (APPLIED EPISTEMOLOGY)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 28, 29, 30, 31  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

You could start by not citing Huffpost. Liars, liars, liberal pants on fire. I trust you weren't relying on them for

Is it really likely that 90% of Republican voters and 20% of Democrat voters would subscribe to an idea that is so contemptuous?

Just doing my part to fight everyone, as any good Applied Epistemologist should. Why don't you join us?
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Rasmussen.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

English only, Ishmael. Rasmüssen yourself.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I hesitate to keep this going. I have no faith that it is possible to break through the cognitive disonance. But here is a video that presents a rational case. I don't say convincing. Don't be convinced, if that's where you are intellectually. That's fair.

But what I won't accept is the insistence that this case is so ridiculous that it deserves no hearing whatsoever.

As for my own position, I find this computer evidence intriguing. But, as Peter Navarro demonstrates. the law-breaking and constitutional violations alone were sufficient to completely reverse the election. I prefer to stay out of the computer analysis because it simply isn't necessary.

But what I do know is that this is decent evidence and a rational argument. And anyone telling you otherwise is not presenting information to you in good faith.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

You keep missing the point. AE says you can believe the presidential election was rigged if you wish. AE also say that I or anyone else here can believe you're barking mad (or politically one-eyed) if you believe the presidential election was rigged.

What AE says you can't do is appeal to some lumpen mass out there as justification for what you believe. After all, for a great many of our (your and my) beliefs that is 100% of people out there.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I am not appealing to the great mass out there to establish something as proven. I am appealing to the great mass out there to establish that something is rational.

AE says; if you believe something, and you can convince one other person to believe it too, then you are not mad and your idea is worthy of consideration and debate.

Now perhaps we have a higher standard than two people for certain ideas; given that, as you say, a significantly greater number than two believe in ideas like alien abduction. Perhaps so. But at present, CNN gives greater credence to alien abduction stories than it does to rational arguments regarding voter fraud in the 2020 election. Last I checked, posting a claim of alien abduction won't get you banned from YouTube. At present, you can't even post a clip of Donald Trump to Instagram.

90% of Republicans and 20% of Democrats are not going to subscribe to an idea that is wholly without merit and worthy only of ridicule. Yet CNN would have you believe that they would, and do (but CNN won't give you the polling data).

While this widely-held belief may yet be wrong, it clearly is not ridiculous. Yet you are being warned against entertaining it, for fear of being subjected to ridicule (Sidney Powell's fate is as sure a warning sign as any head hoisted upon a pike). Surely this ought to make you think twice about whether your sources are truly interested in informing you.

That's the only points I'm making. Your sources are engaging in sophistry to defeat an argument that has some merit. You shouldn't like it. And you certainly shouldn't pile on.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

On the other hand, with respect to this matter of "belief;" I think you will find that there are ideas people believe and some other ideas people "believe."

Everyone believes they will die if they jump out of window on the 27th floor. Anyone who didn't believe that would clearly be irrational.

But that's not the kind of "belief" that many people have in aliens, or ghosts, or even virginal conceptions by the Holy Ghost. Those secondary type beliefs are things the rational mind merely gives permission to the non-rational mind to entertain for the purpose of enduring life on this miserable rock as it spinds through the void.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I am not appealing to the great mass out there to establish something as proven. I am appealing to the great mass out there to establish that something is rational.

That you cannot do. People believe en masse lots of things which you know to be irrational. You cannot pick out the rational ones just because you happen to agree with some of them and then double back and claim these are therefore rational. As far as you're concerned, they are rational. Otherwise you wouldn't believe in them, and that's an end to the matter.

AE says; if you believe something, and you can convince one other person to believe it too, then you are not mad and your idea is worthy of consideration and debate.

No, it very much doesn't. It says when somebody agrees with an original idea of yours, then you're probably not mad to believe it. The election being rigged was not your original idea.

Now perhaps we have a higher standard than two people for certain ideas; given that, as you say, a significantly greater number than two believe in ideas like alien abduction. Perhaps so. But at present, CNN gives greater credence to alien abduction stories than it does to rational arguments regarding voter fraud in the 2020 election. Last I checked, posting a claim of alien abduction won't get you banned from YouTube. At present, you can't even post a clip of Donald Trump to Instagram.

Take this up with CNN, YouTube, Donald Trump and Instagram, not with the AEL

90% of Republicans and 20% of Democrats are not going to subscribe to an idea that is wholly without merit and worthy only of ridicule. Yet CNN would have you believe that they would, and do (but CNN won't give you the polling data).

Again, you are wrong. You are the sole arbiter of what has merit.

While this widely-held belief may yet be wrong, it clearly is not ridiculous. Yet you are being warned against entertaining it, for fear of being subjected to ridicule (Sidney Powell's fate is as sure a warning sign as any head hoisted upon a pike). Surely this ought to make you think twice about whether your sources are truly interested in informing you.

Again you are wrong. And again you are supposing that I am some kind of CNN groupie. I make my own mind up about what is ridiculous. If CNN agrees with me, that's OK by me.

That's the only points I'm making. Your sources are engaging in sophistry to defeat an argument that has some merit. You shouldn't like it. And you certainly shouldn't pile on.

You are blaming me for having a set of beliefs which even you know are rational. I do not say they are either rational or correct because I believe them, but if I thought they weren't then I wouldn't entertain them.

On the other hand, with respect to this matter of "belief;" I think you will find that there are ideas people believe and some other ideas people "believe."

Not me, bub. I just believe things. I don't have a two-tier system. On AE grounds I assume this is true of everybody but I'm prepared to hear alternative theories.

Everyone believes they will die if they jump out of window on the 27th floor. Anyone who didn't believe that would clearly be irrational.

OK...

But that's not the kind of "belief" that many people have in aliens, or ghosts, or even virginal conceptions by the Holy Ghost. Those secondary type beliefs are things the rational mind merely gives permission to the non-rational mind to entertain for the purpose of enduring life on this miserable rock as it spins through the void.

OK... If you want to advance this, be our guest. It sounds quite interesting. A two-tier system that people kinda know about and kinda don't know about. Maybe this applies to me.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The Arizona re-count is proving to be interesting AE-wise. Let me remind members of the position

1. AE-ists can believe that Biden won Arizona (because of the evidence)
2. AE-ists can believe in the possibility that Trump won Arizona (it is technically feasible)
3. AE-ists cannot believe that Trump did win Arizona (no evidence).

The Cyber-Ninjas all hold Position 3. There is a possibility that their somewhat slipshod methods will allow them to show, falsely but sincerely, that Trump won (and of course will show Trump won if Position 2 is correct) but the assumption must be that (1) is correct and they will not be able to show Trump won.

This will place them in an intolerable position at the end of the process. AE predicts they will not be able to recant so they will have to declare some kind of No Contest. It will be interesting which sort they will go for: some kind of neutral technical reason or some kind of conspiratorial reason. My guess is that it will be a neat combination of the two: that the Sheriff's withholding of the software from scrutiny is both the way the election was rigged and the reason they could not unravel it.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

AE is a big fan of hypocrisy.

For instance, I'm always in dispute with everyone I know over asylum-seekers/refugees/economic migrants. The general position of my friends and family (and liberal people generally) is always the same: they are desperate people deserving of our help. Sure, I say, then why don't you keep inviting more and more of them to come and live with you until you have reached a similar level of desperation and can do no more to correct the situation? "No thanks, we gave at the office."

Quite unfair. Most of my friends-and-relations either work for migrant charities or are the endlessly supportive parents of children who work for migrant charities or actually have migrants living in their homes or are migrants themselves or identify intensely with migrants. They ought to know that current (worldwide) policies maximise the suffering of and minimise the useful relocation of migrants but changing those policies requires being nasty to present migrants so it's careful ignoral time.

Don't entirely see where hypocrisy fits in but I wanted to get it off my chest.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

As usual with AE, the first step is to make sure that neither rose-tinted nor unduly pejorative mislabelling is not at the heart of the problem. If we take a theoretical statistical sample of a hundred individuals on a leaky boat in the middle of the Mediterranean, we find

1. They are overwhelmingly young and male and would be far more useful to the countries they are coming from than the countries they are going to, and far less burdensome to either than to the countries they will be spending unconscionably long periods hanging around transiting in between.
2. There are no asylum-seekers or refugees among them. There may very well be individuals who were originally asylum-seekers/refugees but they will have passed through enough transit countries for the end-taker to correctly argue that they should not take a burdensome proportion of all the occupants of the boat just because they are the countries the occupants of the boat, irrespective of status, would ideally like to live in.
3. There are no unaccompanied minors. There may be some individuals who regard themselves as old enough to become migrants but are young enough to be considered minors where they are headed.
4. There are just enough individuals on the boat to make for a heart-warming (and perfectly true) story for news bulletins. There will a mummy bear, a daddy bear...
Send private message
Grant



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Point 1 is very interesting. My view as an extremist is that even genuine asylum seekers shouldn’t be allowed in.

If their country is run by an awful, homophobic, sexist, racist etc etc monster, surely we should encourage asylum seekers to overthrow him, not come and live in Haringey in a government-supplied house.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Too extreme for my taste. Traditionally monsters are overthrown either by emigres or by powerful insiders. My view though is nearly as extreme as yours in that the definition of asylum-seekers is now so far from its original intention that a) many genuine ones don't get in b) many non-genuine ones do get in and c) they all spend years in the system because the definition of asylum seekers is etc etc.

Britain is in a curious position since technically all asylum-seekers must arrive by air from their country-of-persecution which suggests some pretty lax persecution at their end.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

An interesting idea here https://eastermichael.medium.com/why-creativity-is-tanking-c20029d8fa2a It advances the notion that being bored helps creativity. I myself call it ‘washing up moments’ since this is the only time you can’t do anything else. And most people avoid even this by having the radio playing. Taking long walks of course is something only imbeciles do although, who knows, even imbeciles may have thoughts more elevated than "me dogs are killing me".

The article claims the big crisis came in the 1990’s when the e-world became so ubiquitously useful it is impossible ever to be bored again. Again, I can broadly testify to this. I had to give up online poker and playing Civilisation when I observed I was doing little else.
Send private message
Grant



View user's profile
Reply with quote

I gave up Twitter when they banned me for saying that I hoped the Conservative party would follow Labour and commit suicide. Apparently that was promoting suicide.

Rather than remove the post I decided to delete the app. I now find I’m getting much more done and don’t feel so angry every time I look at my phone. I’ve also virtually given up TV news and the Guardian for the same reason.

Still waiting for the burst of creativity but it’s on the way
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 28, 29, 30, 31  Next

Jump to:  
Page 29 of 31

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group