TMax01 t1_irfy378 wrote
Reply to comment by iiioiia in “Scientific progress is thwarted by the ownership of knowledge.” How Karl Popper’s philosophy of science can overcome clinical corruption. by IAI_Admin
a) False
b) yes
iiioiia t1_irg0t8g wrote
> a) False
Can you show a pseudo-code representation of the logic you would use in isSystemRigged() to generate False for the proposition?
> b) yes
If someone disagrees with you, would you be able to demonstrate that you are necessarily correct, and successfully defend that demonstration from valid logical and epistemic critique?
--
And I will re-use this:
If you bought a product that says "Pure Product A" on the label, but it is not in fact composed of 100% Product A but instead also contains .01% of a carcinogenic substance, would you consider the label to be objectively accurate (aka: True)?
TMax01 t1_irg51a0 wrote
>Can you show a pseudo-code representation of the logic you would use in isSystemRigged() to generate False for the proposition?
You are suggesting that whether something is true or false is the same as whether it can be shown to be true or false with pseudo-code. This is a false premise.
The only way your ".01% rigged" system would be "a rigged system" isn't that .01% of the system were a necessary and uncollectable operation component of 100% of the output of the system. Systems are not black boxes. A system doesn't have to be 100% reliable or uncorrupted to be reliable and uncorrupted. This isn't a matter simple enough for the literally braindead logic of pseudo-code or even more braindead real code. It requires reasoning, intelligence, and the ability to grasp the meaning (not merely a single definition) of words.
>f someone disagrees with you, would you be able to demonstrate that you are necessarily correct
Yes, but I would be unable to force them to admit this, or understand it, or even recognize it.
>If you bought a product that says "Pure Product A" on the label, but it is not in fact composed of 100% Product A but instead also contains .01% of a carcinogenic substance, would you consider the label to be objectively accurate (aka: True)?
You have begun a long and difficult journey toward understanding the difference between a system and a product. Best of luck; let me know if there is anything I can do to help.
iiioiia t1_irj5efc wrote
> You are suggesting that whether something is true or false is the same as whether it can be shown to be true or false with pseudo-code.
Incorrect - you are perceiving/interpreting that I am doing that. Please interpret my text literally, with a calm mind.
> This is a false premise.
Then you should abandon it. > > > > The only way your ".01% rigged" system would be "a rigged system" isn't that .01% of the system were a necessary and uncollectable operation component of 100% of the output of the system.
You do not actually possess knowledge of all ways in which a system could be rigged. You are speculating, necessarily.
> Systems are not black boxes.
They are to some degree, in that you do not possess omniscient knowledge of what is going on everywhere, you only possess belief that you possess this knowledge.
> A system doesn't have to be 100% reliable or uncorrupted to be reliable and uncorrupted.
Agree, but a system does have to be 100% reliable and uncorrupted to be 100% reliable and uncorrupted (which is what is being discussed here). Please do not move the goalposts.
> This isn't a matter simple enough for the literally braindead logic of pseudo-code....
The "braindeadedness" of the logic of pseudo-code is a function of the pseudo-code itself, and for us to get some insight into that under these circumstances, it would require that you post a representation of it. I can imagine that this is something you would rather not reveal, so if you do not want to reveal it, I understand.
> It requires reasoning, intelligence, and the ability to grasp the meaning (not merely a single definition) of words.
Agree!! So then, please: provide us insight into the inner workings of your mind, if you have the nerve.
TMax01 t1_irjtw31 wrote
>Incorrect - you are perceiving/interpreting that I am doing that. Please interpret my text literally, with a calm mind.
You are mistaken in believing (I cannot even abide by describing it as percieving/interpreting, it is more akin to wishing or hoping) that I have ever done anything other than interpret your text in any other way.
>Then you should abandon it.
I am not the one professing the false premise. I find it almost too hard to believe you aren't aware you failed to interpret which premise I was referencing. To clarify, it was your premise (unstated, but unavoidable, and by no means rebutted by your accusatory dismissal and semantic gamesmanship) that whether something is true is identical to whether it can be presented as pseudo-code (and, further, that whether you are convinced to believe it, by that effort or any other, is identical to whether it has been objectively (logically) proven).
>You do not actually possess knowledge of all ways in which a system could be rigged.
I do not need that for my position to be sound. You are the one that quantified the "rigging". I merely took your premise to be valid, and explained why it does not support the conclusion you expected it to.
>You are speculating, necessarily.
Indeed, necessarily so: as I seem to constantly have to remind you, all reasoning is speculation. Even the kind that relies on pseudo-code. But, in that way, you are merely speculating (but unnecessarily) that I am speculating, and have not provided any reason to believe my speculation is inaccurate even if your speculation is accurate. When will you abandon these semantic games, iiioiia? You just keep frustrating yourself more and more with every effort, by failing to even supply a coherent disputation of my conjectures.
>They are to some degree,
LOL.
>in that you do not possess omniscient knowledge of what is going on everywhere,
Examining a system doesn't require knowledge of what is going on "everywhere", only within the system. By suggesting that some putative systems are black boxes (but providing no reasoning or analysis to allow us to identify which ones are) you must necessarily be insinuating that the particular (though hypothetic) system being considered is a black box, or you are just babbling. Absolute knowledge of what is going on within the system could be assumed to be essential, yes, but by quantifying the proportion of 'rigging' so precisely (and, I might suggest, minutely) you have forced the idea that such knowledge is available as part of your premise. I simply took you at your word, which is to say, I interpreted your text literally and with a calm mind.
>Agree, but a system does have to be 100% reliable and uncorrupted to be 100% reliable and uncorrupted (which is what is being discussed here). Please do not move the goalposts.
I dispute your idealistic notion, with no movement of any imaginary goalposts necessary. Your assumption that any system can ever or must be 100% reliable is... braindead. A characteristic which is acceptable in pseudo-code, but not actual reasoning.
>Agree!! So then, please: provide us insight into the inner workings of your mind, if you have the nerve.
I do so with every word, despite your increasingly desperate contentions to the contrary. And you, also, like it or not, do the same: with every word you post, you reveal how braindead your reasoning is. It's nothing to be ashamed of; wishing that your thoughts had the precision and consistency of logic, pseudo-code, and computation is endemic in these postmodern times. But it is still an error, and both your reasoning and your attitude would be improved by abandoning it, as it is a vain hope and a dead end, philosophically speaking.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
iiioiia t1_irjvrei wrote
>>>> Can you show a pseudo-code representation of the logic you would use in isSystemRigged() to generate False for the proposition?
>>> You are suggesting that whether something is true or false is the same as whether it can be shown to be true or false with pseudo-code. This is a false premise.
>> Incorrect - you are perceiving/interpreting that I am doing that. Please interpret my text literally, with a calm mind.
> You are mistaken in believing (I cannot even abide by describing it as percieving/interpreting, it is more akin to wishing or hoping) that I have ever done anything other than interpret your text in any other way [than literally].
Ok then: please point out the portion of my text where I explicitly make the claim you say I have.
TMax01 t1_irjy7hm wrote
That your claim is implicit (but clearly indicated by your question and your position, as well as your lack of any other reasoning related to the issue, and confirmed by your subsequent argumentation) does not provide the effortless deniability that this was your premise which you apparently wish it did. It continues to vex you that I am capable of ascertaining your thinking based on your statements (including your queries and requests), but what else could be the purpose of your statements (etc) other than to present your thinking? You seem to be highly focused on either claiming or suggesting that I could not be accurately interpreting your words, but the fact that you don't ever bother to provide any more accurate interpretation (instead merely insisting that my interpretation is inaccurate without justifying your insistence beyond unsubstantiated denials bordering on indignation) actually ratifies my perceptions about your meaning and your beliefs, rather than contradicting them.
iiioiia t1_irk057i wrote
>That your claim is implicit..
You claimed to be interpreting it literally.
Gotcha!! 😁
I must say: for some reason I particularly enjoying arguing with you, although I'm not sure why.
>but what else could be the purpose of your statements (etc) other than to present your thinking?
This is actually an excellent question. For the answer, you can simply read my mind.
TMax01 t1_irk3fry wrote
>You claimed to be interpreting it literally.
I am. Your implicit contention is made obvious by a literal interpretation of your language. It seems that you expect my interpretation to be naive, rather than merely literal; in presuming you were not speaking figuratively, I read your text literally.
>Gotcha!! 😁
You have revealed the fact, as I had already surmised, that you are interested in semantic games (and efforts at one-upsmanship amounting to desperate childishness) rather than intelligent discussion. Oops.
>This is actually an excellent question. For the answer, you can simply read my mind.
As always, I don't need to do so. All I need do is read your words, and the reason you are unable to answer the question is made obvious. I will refer you to my prior point, as regards your involuntary confession about the premise of your argumentation.
iiioiia t1_irk6ftf wrote
This is disappointing.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments