Philosophy Now Forum

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Dec 06, 2020 12:14 am like I say, you (like advocate) miss the point

if you actually got it, you'd understand how dumb bringin' up free riders is

read the charts...apply them to yourself alone...see where you actually stand...quit worryin' about the other guy for a sec

Harry. Your very own charts worry about the "other guy"!

Just because people have every intention and good will to pay for shit it doesn't mean that they actually do!

Let me draw you some pictures.

I studied your diagrams, Henry. For myself and others I know personally, we do not like to be habitual recipients of charity, nor social parasites. We prefer to pay for goods even when we can get away with not paying , or stealing.

[quote=Skepdick post_id=483486 time=1607242585 user_id=17350]
[quote="henry quirk" post_id=483437 time=1607210087 user_id=472]
like I say, you (like advocate) miss the point

if you actually got it, you'd understand how dumb bringin' up free riders is

read the charts...apply them to yourself alone...see where [i]you[/i] actually stand...quit worryin' about the other guy for a sec
[/quote]
Harry. Your very own charts worry about the "other guy"!

Just because people have every intention and good will to pay for shit it doesn't mean that they actually do!

Let me draw you some pictures.

voluntary.png
vol1.png
[/quote]

I pointed out a few such logical inconsistencies early on but the answer was "that doesn't matter".

skep, ad...

you win

obviously, when you get to the point of dissectin' the chart, its purpose is lost and mebbe irretrievable (for you two, anyway)

it's interestin', though, that B gets it while you two don't

anyhow, as I say, you win

movin' on...

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Dec 06, 2020 3:35 pm skep, ad...

you win

obviously, when you get to the point of dissectin' the chart, its purpose is lost and mebbe irretrievable (for you two, anyway)

it's interestin', though, that B gets it while you two don't

anyhow, as I say, you win

movin' on...

Why does everything with you need to be framed as winning/losing?

It's not a zero-sum game, Harry!

[quote="henry quirk" post_id=483535 time=1607265323 user_id=472]
skep, ad...

you win

obviously, when you get to the point of dissectin' the chart, its purpose is lost and mebbe irretrievable (for you two, anyway)

it's interestin', though, that B gets it while you two don't

anyhow, as I say, you win

movin' on... ✌️
[/quote]

So technical inaccuracy isn't a meaningful failure of a method of examination in your eyes, is that correct?

oh yeah...now I remember...obvious as the crooked nose on my ugly mug why B gets it and you two don't

gonna have to note it in my book of useless, but interestin', observations

movin' on...

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Dec 06, 2020 4:13 pm oh yeah...now I remember...obvious as the crooked nose on my ugly mug why B gets it and you two don't

Then how is it that you don't understand I am saying the same thing B is saying?

What the three of us (you, B and myself) say we are going to do doesn't represent what people actually do.

I am asking you to explain where the disconnect is between our best intentions and the actual end result.

I am asking you to explain

I'm *respectfully declinin' to do so









*or, mebbe, not so respectfully...meh

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Dec 06, 2020 4:31 pm I am asking you to explain

I'm *respectfully declinin' to do so.

Great! it seemed you were overlooking the error in your diagrams.

Now both of us know it was a choice, not an omission.

[quote="henry quirk" post_id=483540 time=1607267630 user_id=472]
oh yeah...now I remember...obvious as the crooked nose on my ugly mug why B gets it and you two don't

gonna have to note it in my book of useless, but interestin', observations

movin' on...
[/quote]

Is it because B is judging by intent rather than results? I don't get it, please explain. The purpose of all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding is actionable certainty. Actionable certainty requires replicable results. Any system which requires interpretation, like holy texts, literally cannot lead to replicable results that can be trusted because as soon as the interpreter changes, in either sense, the "meaning" of the interpreted work will also change, and this does not imply in a positive direction or that it will change in line or in time with society.

Those flowcharts have to be interpreted in a very specific way to get meaningful results, and that means intending for them to be meaningful before you even get started and ignoring any potential difficulties all the way through until you get your "answer".

Advocate wrote: ↑Sun Dec 06, 2020 4:36 pm The purpose of all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding is actionable certainty. Actionable certainty requires replicable results
Any system which requires interpretation, like holy texts, literally cannot lead to replicable results that can be trusted because as soon as the interpreter changes, in either sense, the "meaning" of the interpreted work will also change

EVERY result from EVERY system requires interpretation!

Assuming an interpretation-free system is possible is stupid idea that just won't die. Context-free/interpretation-free truths ignore the very mechanisms of language itself!

Science never tells you what to do - science tells you what happens.

Science will NEVER say "don't piss on the electric fence".
Science wil ALWAYS say "urine is a great conductor of electricity".

How you act upon that information depends entirely on you.

[quote=Skepdick post_id=483548 time=1607269300 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=483547 time=1607269015 user_id=15238]
The purpose of all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding is actionable certainty. Actionable certainty requires replicable results
Any system which requires interpretation, like holy texts, literally cannot lead to replicable results that can be trusted because as soon as the interpreter changes, in either sense, the "meaning" of the interpreted work will also change
[/quote]
EVERY result from EVERY system requires interpretation!

Assuming an interpretation-free system is possible is stupid idea that just won't die. Context-free/interpretation-free truths ignore the very mechanisms of language itself!

Science never tells you what to do - science tells you what happens.

Science will NEVER say "don't piss on the electric fence".
Science wil ALWAYS say "urine is a great conductor of electricity".

How you act upon that information depends entirely on you.
[/quote]

Yes, every result requires interpretation, which is why those systems which require Less interpretation are Better.

*I don't get it, **please explain.

*I know

**no

Advocate wrote: ↑Sun Dec 06, 2020 4:45 pm Yes, every result requires interpretation, which is why those systems which require Less interpretation are Better.

What's your yard stick for measuring how much interpretation a system requires?

I am using the Chomsky Hierarchy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_h ... _hierarchy

Everything language that is lower than Type-1 is insufficient