The Existential Crisis

[uwot]

My interpretation of your perspective is like this.

A. Uwot thinks this is both red and not-red.
B. Uwot thinks this is both red and not-red

From the gift that keeps on giving: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emper ... ew_Clothes

[Skepdick]

Because the two opposing views are nothing more than thef under/over-fitting dualism in Bayesian statistics.

Tell that to a statistics forum, you might find someone who gives a fuck.

Dumb fucking philosopher it is the.

All that I've read and ALL the parallels that I have drawn is WHY I am wrecking your religion!

Under-determinism is under-fitting.
Over-determinism is over-fitting.

They are the SAME IDEA in DIFFERENT LANGUAGE.

Statistics is formalized epistemology. You keep pretending you care about epistemology, but then "you don't give a fuck".

The only difference then, is you TALK about epistemology (3rd person), I DO epistemology (1st person)

Perspective!

[Skepdick]

My interpretation of your perspective is like this.

A. Uwot thinks this is both red and not-red.
B. Uwot thinks this is both red and not-red

From the gift that keeps on giving: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emper ... ew_Clothes

Non-sequitur. Transparency is not a color.

[uwot]

Because the two opposing views are nothing more than thef under/over-fitting dualism in Bayesian statistics.

Tell that to a statistics forum, you might find someone who gives a fuck.

Dumb fucking philosopher it is the.

All that I've read and ALL the parallels that I have drawn is WHY I am wrecking your religion!

Well, I personally wouldn't call anything a religion that didn't posit some supernatural entity, but each to their own. So to humour you, let's call anything I argue a statement of religious faith. Which pillar of my wisdom do you feel you have wrecked? How long, do you suppose, before the entire edifice crumbles?

Under-determinism is under-fitting.
Over-determinism is over-fitting.

They are the SAME IDEA in DIFFERENT LANGUAGE.

If you think that underdeterminism and overdeterminism equate to "two opposing views" that equate to some "dualism in Bayesian statistics", then you do not understand one or both of them.

Statistics is formalized epistemology. You keep pretending you care about epistemology, but then "you don't give a fuck".

About formalisation? Yep, don't give a fuck.

The only difference then, is you TALK about epistemology (3rd person), I DO epistemology (1st person)

Perspective!

In terms of philosophy, that is just gibberish. Take something you have said "You keep pretending you care about epistemology", for example. A philosopher might well ask 'How do you know?' and by talking about it, they might find out just how much I really care about epistemology. You by contrast, by DOING epistemology, can apparently interpret things any way you wish and think you know it. That approach is of very limited value.

[uwot]

Non-sequitur. Transparency is not a color.

It's not an argument, so whether it follows or not is neither here nor there. Besides, the point about the Emperor's new clothes is not that they were transparent, it is that he wasn't wearing any.

[Skepdick]

It's not an argument, so whether it follows or not is neither here nor there. Besides, the point about the Emperor's new clothes is not that they were transparent, it is that he wasn't wearing any.

I didn't say it was an argument. I said it was a non-sequitur.

You can't even do basic empiricism where the colors are visible. I think transparency might be too higher grade for you.

[Skepdick]

If you think that underdeterminism and overdeterminism equate to "two opposing views" that equate to some "dualism in Bayesian statistics", then you do not understand one or both of them.

My "understanding" isn't under question here.

What is under question is how you have determined that underdeterminism is the case.

If you haven't determined it, then it's axiomatic. So.... that's a pillar of faith then.

About formalisation? Yep, don't give a fuck.

Pretty weird position that. How do you know you that you understand epistemology then?

There must be some experiment you could perform to test/falsify claims about yourself, no?

In terms of philosophy, that is just gibberish.

I wouldn't know. Nobody has been able to tell me what is and isn't philosophy.

Take something you have said "You keep pretending you care about epistemology", for example. A philosopher might well ask 'How do you know?' and by talking about it , they might find out just how much I really care about epistemology.

But I already know that you only pay lip service to it. Which is why I said that you only pretend you care.

You by contrast, by DOING epistemology, can apparently interpret things any way you wish and think you know it. That approach is of very limited value.

It really depends on what you find valuable. Epistemology is way more valuable when applied than spoken about.

[uwot]

I didn't say it was an argument. I said it was a non-sequitur.

Well, non-sequitur means 'it doesn't follow', which is a property that only applies to arguments.

You can't even do basic empiricism where the colors are visible. I think transparency is too higher grade for you.

Again Skepdick, the Emperor wasn't wearing transparent clothes; he wasn't wearing any. Ya know, we could play nicely, or you can carry on making an arse of yourself. Up to you.

[Skepdick]

Well, non-sequitur means 'it doesn't follow', which is a property that only applies to arguments.

There are other meanings you know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequi ... ry_device)
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/non%20sequitur

Again Skepdick, the Emperor wasn't wearing transparent clothes; he wasn't wearing any. Ya know, we could play nicely, or you can carry on making an arse of yourself. Up to you.

That's what the story said - yes! But it's a non-sequitur.

Empirically, either you are going to consider at least one alternative hypothesis - or you've already fallen into the confirmation bias trap.

Apparently you "understand" underdetermination, but you fail to understand observational equivalence. You need more evidence than observation to conclude what you are concluding. You need tactile feedback.

You keep mis-understanding priors and posteriors....

[uwot]

If you think that underdeterminism and overdeterminism equate to "two opposing views" that equate to some "dualism in Bayesian statistics", then you do not understand one or both of them.

My "understanding" isn't under question here.

Of course it is. Why should you get a free pass? You need to carefully consider what sort of person believes their understanding is above question.

What is under question is how you have determined that underdeterminism is the case.

You've answered your own question:

Empirically, either you are going to consider at least one alternative hypothesis - or you've already fallen into the confirmation bias trap.

If you haven't determined it, then it's axiomatic. So.... that's a pillar of faith then.

In the space of three dots you managed to forget that you began the previous sentence with "If".

About formalisation? Yep, don't give a fuck.

Pretty weird position that. How do you know you that you understand epistemology then?

Oh, so now you're not an advocate of Feyerabend. Skepdick, you have thrown shit from every angle. When are you going to learn that none of it sticks?

[Skepdick]

Of course it is. Why should you get a free pass? You need to carefully consider what sort of person believes their understanding is above question.

Non-sequitur. Empirically, you don't even know what it means "to understand".

You have no objective criteria for verifying/falsifying your own claims about your own understanding, let alone examine mine.

You've answered your own question:

Empirically, either you are going to consider at least one alternative hypothesis - or you've already fallen into the confirmation bias trap.

So it begs two questions then:

1. What alternative did you consider?
2. How did you arrive at your posterior?

In the space of three dots you managed to forget that you began the previous sentence with "If".

There was no "if" when you spoke about underdeterminism. It was "the case" for you.

Oh, so now you're not an advocate of Feyerabend. Skepdick, you have thrown shit from every angle. When are you going to learn that none of it sticks?

It is because I advocate FOR Feyerabend (yet you insisting that I don't) is why I am asking you the EPISTEMIC question: How do you know that you understand?

I am asking you to tell me HOW you test for your own understanding or lack thereof.

[uwot]

Of course it is. Why should you get a free pass? You need to carefully consider what sort of person believes their understanding is above question.

Non-sequitur. Empirically, you don't even know what it means "to understand".

You have no objective criteria for verifying/falsifying your own claims about your own understanding, let alone examine mine.

Skepdick me old china, I don't even have any objective criteria for what "to understand" means because you, being so batshit, think that's entirely up to you:

That is EXACTLY how communication works! That's exactly how "being heard" works! I make words mean exactly what I want them to mean.

1. What alternative did you consider?

Is this guy stupid? Is he mental?

2. How did you arrive at your posterior?

Or can he not help talking out of his posterior?

In the space of three dots you managed to forget that you began the previous sentence with "If".

There was no "if" when you spoke about underdeterminism. It was "the case" for you.

Skepdick, you really should learn to think before you fire off your petulant rants. Here's what you said:

If you haven't determined it, then it's axiomatic. So.... that's a pillar of faith then.

Not only did I determine underdeterminism, I used your own example to illustrate one way in which I have done so.

Empirically, either you are going to consider at least one alternative hypothesis - or you've already fallen into the confirmation bias trap.

You see Skepdick? When you say something that isn't total bollocks, I agree with you.

It is because I advocate FOR Feyerabend (yet you insisting that I don't) is why I am asking you the EPISTEMIC question: How do you know that you understand?

If this sentence makes any sense to you, then you can reasonably infer that I understand. And even if it doesn't, just make up some shit that you can get your head around because according to you:

That is EXACTLY how communication works! That's exactly how "being heard" works! I make words mean exactly what I want them to mean.

I am asking you to tell me HOW you test for your own understanding or lack thereof.

I had the good people at University College London do it for me.

[Skepdick]

Skepdick me old china, I don't even have any objective criteria for what "to understand" means because you, being so batshit, think that's entirely up to you:

I know that!

But you appointed yourself the verifier of my understanding, which is pretty fucking strange role to appoint yourself at given that you can't even verify your own understanding.

You have outsourced the verification your own understanding to the "good people at University College London"

Is this guy stupid? Is he mental?

You don't have objective criteria for "understanding" but you think you have criteria for "stupid" and "mental" ?

Tell us all about them...

Or can he not help talking out of his posterior?

Have you considered this hypothesis: Your own understanding of how language works is limited so you can't parse mine.

We teach the mechanics of parsing to first year comp sci students.

Skepdick, you really should learn to think before you fire off your petulant rants. Here's what you said:

If you haven't determined it, then it's axiomatic. So.... that's a pillar of faith then.

Not only did I determine underdeterminism, I used your own example to illustrate one way in which I have done so.

I know that!!! You have some serious challenges with listening. How you have managed to maintain a relationship enough to procreate is entirely beyond me.

I know that you have determined underdeterminism - I am not blind. Hence me pointing out your performative contradiction!

Determining undetdeterminism is an overdetermination!

The fact that you contradict yourself is not at all important to me. What I am asking you is to explain to me your epistemic criterion.

What kind of observations would've made you determine something other than underdeterminism?
What event would've led to a different outcome?

You see Skepdick? When you say something that isn't total bollocks, I agree with you.

Your "bollocks" criterion is bollocks.

I had the good people at University College London do it for me.

That's fucking circular and doesn't address the root cause of the problem I am pointing.

If the good people at UCL checked your understanding, how did the good people at UCL check their own understanding?

What would be a good empirical test that would confirm that the good people at UCL don't understand anything?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[uwot]

You don't have objective criteria for "understanding" but you think you have criteria for "stupid" and "mental" ?

Tell us all about them...

I read your posts.

[Skepdick]

I read your posts.

I read yours too. And then?

Now that we have established a symmetry (tautology), show me an asymmetry (information).

If you actually grok the computational framework, you might even understand that I am asking you for a Proof net.

I have no intention of throwing the book at you. An informal one would suffice.