4 ms·

Aargh. Life doesn't proceed by proof. Not all that counts can be counted. William James (paraphrased): "James acknowledges that in our scientific age, there is

by theoh 9y ago

Aargh. Life doesn't proceed by proof. Not all that counts can be counted. William James (paraphrased): "James acknowledges that in our scientific age, there is something dubious about the voluntaristic view that, in some circumstances, we can legitimately choose to believe in the absence of any objective justification. However, he claims we naturally do so all the time, our moral and political ideas being obvious examples. When you believe that your mother loves you or in the sincerity of your best friend, you have no conclusively objective evidence. In addition, you will never be able to secure such evidence. Yet it often seems unreasonable to refuse to commit to believing such matters; if we did so, the pragmatic consequences would be a more impoverished social life. Indeed, in some cases, believing and acting on that belief can help increase the chances of the belief being true." http://www.iep.utm.edu/james-o/#SH4a http://www.iep.utm.edu/james-o/#SH4a

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
> Life doesn't proceed by proof. Please distinguish proof and evidence. > Not all that counts can be counted. How do you know that? > However, he claims we naturally do so all the time, our moral and political ideas being obvious examples. Yeah, and so incredibly successful, too, how people believe that black people are inferior or homosexuality is an abomination, without any interest in objective evidence. > When you believe that your mother loves you or in the sincerity of your best friend, you have no conclusively objective evidence. Yeah, it's absolutely impossible to know whether your mother or your best friend is objectively treating you well or terribly, so what can you do? You just have to assume that they love you! > In addition, you will never be able to secure such evidence. WTF? Next you tell me it's absolutely impossible to know whether animals are aggressive and you will never be able to secure evidence? > Yet it often seems unreasonable to refuse to commit to believing such matters; if we did so, the pragmatic consequences would be a more impoverished social life. WTF?! Yeah, believing and acting as if someone loves you without any evidence is so socially enriching there is even a term for it: It's called stalking.
- yesenadam 9y ago
  "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
    Such as?
    - yesenadam 9y ago
      Well, your comment seemed a nitpicky objecting-to-everything-they-said, and tiresomely missing the point at every turn. From the initial pedantic "Please distinguish proof and evidence." Do you talk to your friends like that? It's already headmasterish and snarky. It's not clear what you're asking for. But you move on after 5 words to dispatch the next offending sentence, like they're a succession of pesky bad guys in a kung fu movie waiting to be swatted down by our hero. I don't think the comment you were replying to was a model of clarity; the quote is a paraphrase of a paraphrase of an argument in James' The Will To Believe. I'm familiar with that essay (not one of his most impressive) so maybe it was easier for me to hear what they were trying to say. But "WTF?!" etc isn't helpful. ... Objecting to every sentence like that doesn't even begin to address what they were trying to say. Anyway, all of this seems obvious, I think you know this, I'll stop here. Your comment read like you didn't care about what they were trying to say, just to knock them out of the water with any available weapon, which you seem to think you had done.
      - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
        > Well, your comment seemed a nitpicky objecting-to-everything-they-said Well, yes, I guess I was objecting to everything they said. But not because they said it, but because it's a bunch of terrible arguments. > and tiresomely missing the point at every turn. Such as? > From the initial pedantic "Please distinguish proof and evidence." Well, except that it's probably not pedantic, as their argument probably hinges on that fallacious equivocation. > Do you talk to your friends like that? Arguing in public is not talking to your friends. > It's already headmasterish and snarky. Which invalidates the argument how? > It's not clear what you're asking for. If you think that I am misunderstanding your(/their) argument or you see a flaw in mine, I am asking for you to explain the error in my reasoning. > But you move on after 5 words to dispatch the next offending sentence The offense is something that you choose to see, not something I said. > like they're a succession of pesky bad guys in a kung fu movie waiting to be swatted down by our hero. Are they not? > I don't think the comment you were replying to was a model of clarity; the quote is a paraphrase of a paraphrase of an argument in James' The Will To Believe. I'm familiar with that essay (not one of his most impressive) so maybe it was easier for me to hear what they were trying to say. Well, I don't know that essay, so it's possible that I am completely missing the point, in which case, feel free to explain. But then again, I have heard arguments of that form more than once, and so far whenever I looked any closer, it boiled down to the same flaw in the reasoning. > But "WTF?!" etc isn't helpful. Helpful for what? > Objecting to every sentence like that doesn't even begin to address what they were trying to say. Well, OK, what were they trying to say, then? > Anyway, all of this seems obvious, I think you know this, I'll stop here. You think that is helpful? > Your comment read like you didn't care about what they were trying to say, just to knock them out of the water with any available weapon, which you seem to think you had done. So, my goal was to knock some person I don't know out of the water regardless what their argument was? I'm not sure that makes sense ...

by theoh 9y ago

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago

> Life doesn't proceed by proof. Please distinguish proof and evidence. > Not all that counts can be counted. How do you know that? > However, he claims we naturally do so all the time, our moral and political ideas being obvious examples. Yeah, and so incredibly successful, too, how people believe that black people are inferior or homosexuality is an abomination, without any interest in objective evidence. > When you believe that your mother loves you or in the sincerity of your best friend, you have no conclusively objective evidence. Yeah, it's absolutely impossible to know whether your mother or your best friend is objectively treating you well or terribly, so what can you do? You just have to assume that they love you! > In addition, you will never be able to secure such evidence. WTF? Next you tell me it's absolutely impossible to know whether animals are aggressive and you will never be able to secure evidence? > Yet it often seems unreasonable to refuse to commit to believing such matters; if we did so, the pragmatic consequences would be a more impoverished social life. WTF?! Yeah, believing and acting as if someone loves you without any evidence is so socially enriching there is even a term for it: It's called stalking.

yesenadam 9y ago
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  Such as?
  - yesenadam 9y ago
    Well, your comment seemed a nitpicky objecting-to-everything-they-said, and tiresomely missing the point at every turn. From the initial pedantic "Please distinguish proof and evidence." Do you talk to your friends like that? It's already headmasterish and snarky. It's not clear what you're asking for. But you move on after 5 words to dispatch the next offending sentence, like they're a succession of pesky bad guys in a kung fu movie waiting to be swatted down by our hero. I don't think the comment you were replying to was a model of clarity; the quote is a paraphrase of a paraphrase of an argument in James' The Will To Believe. I'm familiar with that essay (not one of his most impressive) so maybe it was easier for me to hear what they were trying to say. But "WTF?!" etc isn't helpful. ... Objecting to every sentence like that doesn't even begin to address what they were trying to say. Anyway, all of this seems obvious, I think you know this, I'll stop here. Your comment read like you didn't care about what they were trying to say, just to knock them out of the water with any available weapon, which you seem to think you had done.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
      > Well, your comment seemed a nitpicky objecting-to-everything-they-said Well, yes, I guess I was objecting to everything they said. But not because they said it, but because it's a bunch of terrible arguments. > and tiresomely missing the point at every turn. Such as? > From the initial pedantic "Please distinguish proof and evidence." Well, except that it's probably not pedantic, as their argument probably hinges on that fallacious equivocation. > Do you talk to your friends like that? Arguing in public is not talking to your friends. > It's already headmasterish and snarky. Which invalidates the argument how? > It's not clear what you're asking for. If you think that I am misunderstanding your(/their) argument or you see a flaw in mine, I am asking for you to explain the error in my reasoning. > But you move on after 5 words to dispatch the next offending sentence The offense is something that you choose to see, not something I said. > like they're a succession of pesky bad guys in a kung fu movie waiting to be swatted down by our hero. Are they not? > I don't think the comment you were replying to was a model of clarity; the quote is a paraphrase of a paraphrase of an argument in James' The Will To Believe. I'm familiar with that essay (not one of his most impressive) so maybe it was easier for me to hear what they were trying to say. Well, I don't know that essay, so it's possible that I am completely missing the point, in which case, feel free to explain. But then again, I have heard arguments of that form more than once, and so far whenever I looked any closer, it boiled down to the same flaw in the reasoning. > But "WTF?!" etc isn't helpful. Helpful for what? > Objecting to every sentence like that doesn't even begin to address what they were trying to say. Well, OK, what were they trying to say, then? > Anyway, all of this seems obvious, I think you know this, I'll stop here. You think that is helpful? > Your comment read like you didn't care about what they were trying to say, just to knock them out of the water with any available weapon, which you seem to think you had done. So, my goal was to knock some person I don't know out of the water regardless what their argument was? I'm not sure that makes sense ...