Philosophy Now Forum

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 6:59 pm If it doesn't communicate anything testable it's not a claim

What is the test for that claim?

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 9:09 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 6:59 pm If it doesn't communicate anything testable it's not a claim

What is the test for that claim?

The test is your inability to test his claims!

Not having a test prevents you from ever testing/reproducing his experiment and seeing what he's seeing.
You don't know what series of observations caused the narrative.

Do you have a test? No.

Testing for the presence of a test failed.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 9:31 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 9:09 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 6:59 pm If it doesn't communicate anything testable it's not a claim

What is the test for that claim?

The test is your inability to test his claims!

Not having a test prevents you from ever testing/reproducing his experiment and seeing what he's seeing.
You don't know what series of observations caused the narrative.

Do you have a test? No.

Testing for the presence of a test failed.

that doesn't test the claim that anything not testable is not claimed. You seem to be failing your own test.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 9:59 am that doesn't test the claim that anything not testable is not claimed. You seem to be failing your own test.

I wasn't testing for that.
You were.

What is your test procedure?

I feel no need or obligation to defend reality from the claims being made upon it.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 10:06 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 9:59 am that doesn't test the claim that anything not testable is not claimed. You seem to be failing your own test.

I wasn't testing for that.
You were.

What is your test procedure?

I feel no need or obligation to defend reality from the claims being made upon it.

I claim that your claim: If it doesn't communicate anything testable it's not a claim, is not testable, and therefore isn't a claim. My test will be whatever your test is for this claim. If that is aclaim that I am responsible for producing a testing methodology, then my next is that you become responsible for the meta-testingmethodology of that claim. After which I propose that you should demand a new test from me - but note this is a suggestion not a claim. From there I have a light hankering for one of us to tell the other to test something on our behalf. After that the breeze whispers to me (not in the form of a claim, or at least not so far as I can test) that some more testing may be required.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 10:18 am My test will be whatever your test is for this claim.

Why WILL be?

I was under the impression that the test was communicated. Did you not hear it? Say so!

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 10:18 am I claim that your claim: If it doesn't communicate anything testable it's not a claim, is not testable, and therefore isn't a claim.

From whose perspective?

From mine - it's testable, and therefore the test was transmitted to you (or I thought it was, I can retry if you want me to)
From yours - the test may not have been received, and therefore it's not testable.

As to whether it's a claim or not a claim - that's your language, not mine. I don't really care.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 10:28 am I was under the impression that the test was communicated. Did you not hear it? Say so!

Well you mentioned that testing for the presence of a test failed, but in the absence of a methodology validated and supported striclty by an unbroken chain of tested claims, it is my claim that you haven't provided a demonstrable test.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 10:28 am I don't really care.

Or so you claim.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 10:41 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 10:28 am I don't really care.

Or so you claim.

I have no idea what that means. I am saying it.

Does that mean I am claiming it?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 10:43 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 10:41 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 10:28 am I don't really care.

Or so you claim.

I have no idea what that means. I am saying it.

Does that mean I am claiming it?

My turn not to care.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 10:41 am Well you mentioned that testing for the presence of a test failed, but in the absence of a methodology validated and supported striclty by an unbroken chain of tested claims, it is my claim that you haven't provided a demonstrable test.

OK, and what do you want me to do about that?

You can't test for the presence of a test in your own head.
I can.

Need help?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 10:46 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 10:41 am Well you mentioned that testing for the presence of a test failed, but in the absence of a methodology validated and supported striclty by an unbroken chain of tested claims, it is my claim that you haven't provided a demonstrable test.

OK, and what do you want me to do about that?

You can't test it.
I can.

Need help?

Sure, guide me through how we test for the claim that "If it doesn't communicate anything testable it's not a claim". I believe we have adequately tested the claim that I don't know how to test it. I am unconvinced that we have adequately tested any claim - if such exists - that you do know how to test it.

I mean, that is supposing it is a claim. It might just be a motto that you printed out and stuck to your vision board, and not intended as anything beyond.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 10:52 am Sure, guide me through how we test for the claim that "If it doesn't communicate anything testable it's not a claim".
I believe we have adequately tested the claim that I don't know how to test it. I am unconvinced that we have adequately tested any claim - if such exists - that you do know how to test it.

Here is my decision-procedure.

Was I able to decode a test from the narrative?

Yes -> I have received a test, therefore it's testable.
No -> I haven't received a test, therefore it's not testable.

P.S observe how you are talking about "we" and "claims". Lame vocabulary framing tactic, but I'll let it fly.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 10:54 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 10:52 am Sure, guide me through how we test for the claim that "If it doesn't communicate anything testable it's not a claim".

It's not a claim?

It is just something you propose as a principle by which to organise a set of logical proceedings?
In that case I simply reject it on the grounds it makes no sense and serves no purpose, and you just got it out of a logical positivist fortune cookie as far as I can see.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 10:54 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 10:52 am I believe we have adequately tested the claim that I don't know how to test it. I am unconvinced that we have adequately tested any claim - if such exists - that you do know how to test it.

Sure. Here is my decision-procedure.

Was I able to decode an empirical test from the narrative?

Yes -> I have received a test, therefore it's testable.
No -> I haven't received a test, therefore it's not testable.

But what about non empirical claims?
Such as any claim that religion is never initiated by the word of any god?
You know, the ill-defined shit you are nominally defending with this weird crap, but about which you don't give a flying one?

I presume the absurdly inflated fallibility of that 'testing' procedure is intended as some sort of trap? If it's an entertaining one I guess I can walk in there, there's no harm in us stealing Veritas' stupid thread now he's given up on it. If you are planning on doing doxastic logic at me that would be helpful as I'm not sure I get it. If it's another round of boring computational theory I might pass on that.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 10:54 am P.S observe how you are talking about "we" and "claims". Lame vocabulary framing tactic, but I'll let it fly.

Ok, I mean, I am describing challengeable assertions as 'claims', I don't think that's all that bad. Henry makes claims about property rights on the basis of natural rights, Mannie makes claims about many stuffs on the basis of God's advice, Veritas claims to have accurately categorised every passage of the entire Quran into an Excel spreadsheet. At least some part of each of those claims is challengeable without being empirically testable, this sort of thing is why we have logic in the first place (I would posit that that is also an empirically untestable but challengeable claim). So I think you probably are best off letting that fly.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 11:28 am It is just something you propose as a principle by which to organise a set of logical proceedings?

I am not proposing anything. I am telling you how my mind works. It MAY actually be useful information if WE are to succeed at communication.

We can negotiate principles later. Right now, it seems to me you don't even appear to grok how cooperative multitasking works in practice.

Or maybe you do grok that without trust, it doesn't work, and philosophical contrarianism is just a choice?

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 11:28 am In that case I simply reject it on the grounds it makes no sense and serves no purpose, and you just got it out of a logical positivist fortune cookie as far as I can see.

My way of thinking (which, as best as I can tell is the scientific way of thinking), which brought the very communication instrument that you (and billions others) are currently using serves no purpose?

OK. Sorry to bother you.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 11:28 am But what about non empirical claims?
Such as any claim that religion is never initiated by the word of any god?

There are no such things as non-empirical claims ( <------ look! This is ME framing US in the language of empiricism. I am controlling the narrative).

If you considered (and dismissed) alternative hypotheses you were doing empiricism (as I understand it). If you didn't consider alternative hypotheses - then what makes you say that "religion is never initiated by the word of any god?"

(and this is where I yield control, so that cooperative multi-tasking can take place)

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 11:28 am You know, the ill-defined shit you are nominally defending with this weird crap, but about which you don't give a flying one?

Perhaps you need to define what you mean by "definition"?

All the shit I am defending is as well defined as can possibly be - it's formal language theory.

It's defined and verified by three separate theoretical disciplines: Logic, Mathematics and Computer Science. I am literally using an empirically-verified formal model of communication and cooperative multi-tasking to EXPLAIN to you (and most Philosophers) why I think your communication style sucks and leads nowhere.

This stuff is so well defined that the whole damn internet works, and on the internet you get Wikipedia where all this "ill defined" stuff is actually defined really, really well.

How much more precise do you want me to get?

Of course, you can always tell me that the Philosophical faux-opposition/contrarianism is intentional for <some peculiar purpose>.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 11:28 am I presume the absurdly inflated fallibility of that 'testing' procedure is intended as some sort of trap?

And that presumption is why you are completely and utterly incapable of participating in cooperative multitasking.
You think every interaction is a prisoners' dilemma.

I see it as information exchange. It has to be cooperative, else it's useless.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 11:28 am If it's an entertaining one I guess I can walk in there, there's no harm in us stealing Veritas' stupid thread now he's given up on it. If you are planning on doing doxastic logic at me that would be helpful as I'm not sure I get it. If it's another round of boring computational theory I might pass on that.

Fuck logic. It's just grammar/structuralism/reductionism. It's exactly what I am trying to draw your attention away from.

You are attacking the grammar of the argument, when you don't even understand the semantics.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 11:28 am Ok, I mean, I am describing challengeable assertions as 'claims', I don't think that's all that bad.

But you aren't! You are challenging the grammar of the narrative produced by the assertion procedure in my head.

I told you that X is testable. You said it's not.

I have a procedure (lets call it P) which determines that I have a test for X.
P determines test-for-X exists -> The words "X is testable" come out of my mouth.

You are insisting that because test-for-X doesn't exist in YOUR head, then my P doesn't exist.

Your Modus Tollens went one step too far.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 1:02 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 11:28 am It is just something you propose as a principle by which to organise a set of logical proceedings?

I am not proposing anything. I am telling you how my mind works. It MAY actually be useful information if WE are to succeed at communication.

We can negotiate principles later. Right now, it seems to me you don't even appear to grok how cooperative multitasking works in practice.

Or maybe you do grok that without trust, it doesn't work, and philosophical contrarianism is just a choice?

I don't see it as particularly cooperative that you insert and insist on your choice of random axiom without bothering to introduce a reason. You are playing Calvinball.

It has always been my understanding of logics that they require agreement such that the parties can communicate the same meanings by the same symbols. You continually insist it must be other people's problem that you want to impose your own meanings or just demand to be using different logical schema just for your own private language reasons. You have yet to present any indication that this is for anyone's benefit except yours, and you have a strong tendency to only mention you have imposed an arbitrary new rule after the fact. That's downright uncooperative behaviour.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 1:02 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 11:28 am In that case I simply reject it on the grounds it makes no sense and serves no purpose, and you just got it out of a logical positivist fortune cookie as far as I can see.

My way of thinking (which, as best as I can tell is the scientific way of thinking), which brought the very communication instrument that you (and billions others) are currently using serves no purpose?

OK. Sorry to bother you.

Is that part of some narrative argument you are trying to make? Is the purpose of mentioning your role in the creation of the internet and the invention of computing supposed to indicate that those same tools that furnished us with those advances apply to other tasks without reference to similarity to the task for which they were previously useful?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 1:02 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 11:28 am But what about non empirical claims?
Such as any claim that religion is never initiated by the word of any god?

There are no such things as non-empirical claims ( <------ look! This is ME framing US in the language of empiricism. I am controlling the narrative).

If you considered (and dismissed) alternative hypotheses you were doing empiricism (as I understand it). If you didn't consider alternative hypotheses - then what makes you say that "religion is never initiated by the word of any god?"

Before you wandered in to demand that everything has to be about you as always, I was asking Veritas about the form of conclusion he is drawing in his argument. Do you remember when that was the point of this thread? In that question, which he has now ducked with your egomaniacal assistance, I was asking him if he thought his argument demonstrates that all religious stuff must be caused by the thing he describes, entailing, as it explicitly does, a claim that all other causes are secondary or absent, including the untestable supernatural. Your ego has stolen all that because you only want to talk down to the rest of us from your position of computer science, and everything is here just to be about you.

There is reason to doubt that your understanding of what constitutes empiricism takes the traditional form*. But your Calvinball rules will probably make that go away. I was still at the point of just making Veritas explain his position in sufficient detail to adequately assess it, not a prticularly empirical objective in my book. But that task is (sort of empirically) usually a waste of effort, so I'm not terribly concerned that once again we got nowhere near that point.

*For instance "There are no such things as non-empirical claims" is not empirically discoverable, and neither is it logically necessary that it should be the "language of empiricism". Empirical method makes no exclusive claim in and of itself to be the only method by which any claims can be tested at all. What it is, is the language of some specific empiricists, a group of men who agrandize themselves by dismissing whole categories of language and logic by illogical means. It is a statement of belief, not of discovered fact.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 1:02 pm (and this is where I yield control, so that cooperative multi-tasking can take place)

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 11:28 am You know, the ill-defined shit you are nominally defending with this weird crap, but about which you don't give a flying one?

Perhaps you need to define what you mean by "definition"?

Absolutely not. When stuff gets that meta and circular my time suddenly reacquires value to me. If you have some reason to really need to do that, then the conversation has truly become a dialogue of the deaf and I just don't have the time for that. But if you want to go that far, yet somehow heap all the blame on me for not understanding you enough, that would be revealing as far as I am concerned.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 1:02 pm All the shit I am defending is as well defined as can possibly be - it's formal language theory.

yeah I'm gonna cut that little rant off there. Do you recall you were once nominally defending Aquafresh from my mean insistence on philosophical logics? I guess my point that you never gave a crap is somewhat underlined, and honestly if you have been offended that I think you make everything all about you ....

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 1:02 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 11:28 am I presume the absurdly inflated fallibility of that 'testing' procedure is intended as some sort of trap?

And that presumption is why you are completely and utterly incapable of participating in cooperative multitasking.
You think every interaction is a prisoners' dilemma.

I see it as information exchange. It has to be cooperative, else it's useless.

The rules of the logic may need to be cooperative or else it's meaningless. But if you are launching into me over every little thing, then I can't really square that with any willingness on your part to cooperate about anything, and I've already stated my opinion about your cooperative qualities on the former article.

The game theory cooperation angle probably doesn't help much if the point of the game is to discover whether arguments are valid, sound, justified, demonstrable and so on. Just as it wouldn't help much if scientists 'cooperated' by not contradicting each others pet theories. There are time you see where the tools of one method of investigation aren't automatically the best tools for some completely different sort, which is a callback to an earlier point I made, which is cool because it shows how much I like these conversations and try to really put in the effort to be clear and helpful in order to resolve ambiguities as thoroughly as possible.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 1:02 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 11:28 am If it's an entertaining one I guess I can walk in there, there's no harm in us stealing Veritas' stupid thread now he's given up on it. If you are planning on doing doxastic logic at me that would be helpful as I'm not sure I get it. If it's another round of boring computational theory I might pass on that.

Fuck logic. It's just grammar/structuralism/reductionism. It's exactly what I am trying to draw your attention away from.

You are attacking the grammar of the argument, when you don't even understand the semantics.

Which argument are you claiming has such important semantic qualities that we must not examine it for logical inconsistency or unsupportable claim? This can't be about Veritas' argument, not that it ever was. But that causes new confusion, becasue this entire sort of narrative argument doesn't work for you right?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 1:02 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 11:28 am Ok, I mean, I am describing challengeable assertions as 'claims', I don't think that's all that bad.

But you aren't! You are challenging the grammar of the narrative produced by the assertion procedure in my head.

Dude, I was literally endorsing the dictionary definition of 'claim' (one of them anyways). I am telling you flat out that I am using the completely normal meaning of the word. If you are so cooperative the time has come for you to respect that. If you are an adversarial zero-sum menace of the sort you describe me as being, you will just try to overrule me.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 1:02 pm I told you that X is testable. You said it's not.

I have a procedure (lets call it P) which determines that I have a test for X.
P determines test-for-X exists -> The words "X is testable" come out of my mouth.

You are insisting that because test-for-X doesn't exist in YOUR head, then my P doesn't exist.

Your Modus Tollens went one step too far.

You have transcribed that argument badly. Remember what you were trying to describe was a test for the phrase "If it doesn't communicate anything testable it's not a claim". And then look at what you are smuggling in as just P there. The actual P that you presented does not test the phrase, and it has no error detection in the case of the subject misunderstanding the question. So the procedure for intiating the utterance "X is not testable" can be initiated when X is indeed testable.

On the obverse, if the test for X does not test X (let's suppose for instance that it merely tests the belief "I can test X" but the uterrer is a doxastic conceited or inaccurate reasoner), then a false report of "X is testable" will occur. Look at that, I did my own doxastics. Bring me the finest muffins and bagels in all the land, for tonight we drink from the keg of victory.

Back on topic ... you weren't deliberately blowing that by inserting the words "I haven't received a test"? I thought scientists were supposed to be highly attuned to questions of test protocol adequacy? Is it possible those don't apply in cases of testing the logically untestable?