Calling All Liberal Race Baiters

[Immanuel Can]

You are consciously engaging in problem-solving, while believing that there is no problem.

Heh. Obfuscation again.

I never said, "There is no problem." I said, "You don't know what the problem, if there is one, actually is." That's quite different.

[Skepdick]

I never said, "There is no problem." I said, "You don't know what the problem, if there is one, actually is." That's quite different.

Precisely!

Either there is a problem (probability=0.5); or there isn't a problem (probability=0.5).

Why are you engaging in problem-solving given the equivalent epistemic status of both hypotheses?

Heh. Obfuscation again.

It's great that you admit to it, but it would be even better if you stopped doing it.

[Immanuel Can]

Either there is a problem (probability=0.5); or there isn't a problem (probability=0.5).

Since you admit you don't know if there is, why are you insisting there is?

[Skepdick]

Either there is a problem (probability=0.5); or there isn't a problem (probability=0.5).

Since you admit you don't know if there is, why are you insisting there is?

You are incredibly confused.

From the outset I recognised that there is a problem. That is why I am problem-solving!

Why are you problem-solving if you don't even recognise a problem?

[Immanuel Can]

From the outset I recognised that there is a problem.

Why? You just said the probability was only 50% that it even might exist? You said you don't know.

Now who's confused?

[Skepdick]

From the outset I recognised that there is a problem.

Why? You just said the probability was only 50% that it even might exist? You said you don't know.

Now who's confused?

The 50/50 is your probability. Not mine.

My probability is

P(there's a problem) > P(there's no problem)

What swayed me? Evidence!
How did I collect the evidence? The same fucking way every scientist does. Observation.

[Immanuel Can]

The 50/50 is your probability. Not mine.

I never said it. You did.

What swayed me? Evidence!
How did I collect the evidence? The same fucking way every scientist does. Observation.

Great!
What's your "evidence"?

[Skepdick]

I never said it. You did.

You did say it.

Let me remind you.

I never said, "There is no problem." I said, "You don't know what the problem, if there is one, actually is." That's quite different.

If you are not using the word 'IF' to assign equal probabilities to:

A. There is a problem.
B. There is no problem

Then what weights are you assigning to A and B?

What's your "evidence"?

The same thing which made you assign higher weight to A than B above.

The problem.

[Immanuel Can]

What's your "evidence"?

The same thing which made you assign higher weight to A than B above.

I assigned no weights. You proposed them.

But you didn't answer. What's your alleged "evidence"?

[Skepdick]

I assigned no weights. You proposed them.

Then WHY are you behaving as if Probability(A) > Probability(B)? Why are you problem-solving?

A. There is a problem
B. There is no problem.

But you didn't answer. What's your alleged "evidence"?

The same thing which made you believe Probability(A) > Probability(B).

[Immanuel Can]

But you didn't answer. What's your alleged "evidence"?

The same thing which made you believe Probability(A) > Probability(B).

Then you have no evidence that should convince you. You have two equal probabilities. Maybe there's no problem. Or if there is, you have no idea what it is anyway. You already said so.

[Skepdick]

Then you have no evidence that should convince you.

And yet! You problem-solve.

Why?

[Immanuel Can]

Then you have no evidence that should convince you.

And yet! You problem-solve.

I problem-confirm before I problem-solve. You just assume.

Your evidence, please?

[Skepdick]

I problem-confirm before I problem-solve.

Your evidence, please?

Why? What made you suspect a possible problem if you have no evidence?

Why are you committing time, energy and possibly money on a maybe-problem?

[Immanuel Can]

What made you suspect a possible problem if you have no evidence? [/quote}
Deflection. I'm ignoring it.

Where is your "evidence"?