4 ms·

He's saying that you're taking the article's metaphor too literally. The author is using the fish line as imagery to help illustrate his point; it is not actua

He's saying that you're taking the article's metaphor too literally. The author is using the fish line as imagery to help illustrate his point; it is not actually a "premise" like you suggest, and so its scientific truth is just not relevant.

jerrya 15y ago
Look, science fiction requires a willing suspension of disbelief. I get that. I get too that the article starts with a metaphor. The metaphor seems bogus to me. And the post was apparently not science fiction. So I said, the metaphor seems bogus to me. Your response seems to be, "it's imagery." Okay, my position is that this premise/metaphor/imagery is probably bogus and as such, hurts the article. I can't suspend my disbelief long enough to get to the rest of the article. F=>X is T for all X. Cast article form of tautology. I appreciate your response to me, as opposed to the downvotes my response received with no explanation.
- philwelch 15y ago
  It's an analogy, not a logical conditional. It's English, not Lojban.
  - jerrya 15y ago
    Yes, thank you. I can see by the points I lose just how much everyone wants to tell me it's an analogy/metaphor/imagery not actual logic. I read stuff all day long where people say, "your analogy is wrong". That actually is part of an argument. I assume Derek would like to be a better writer -- we all would. I assume Derek would like his articles to carry weight -- we all would. His analogy/metaphor/imagery is probably bogus and stopped me in my tracks. I understand how stating my position that I could not get further than that brings down the hammer at HN. Ironically, my stating my own opinion that I cannot buy into his analogy/metaphor/imagery and that his metaphor is wrong AND the consequent hammer of downvotes as HN readers hate on me actually makes Derek's point. I think I get this, thank you. "And yet, it moves"
    - philwelch 15y ago
      Stop being melodramatic. Since I've actually studied how natural language statements map to logical truth functions, I'm honestly mystified as to why you think an analogy is semantically equivalent to a material conditional.
      - ColinWright 15y ago
        You're not the only one who has studied such things. I, too, have studied how natural languages map (or don't map) to the logical constructs in math, and I've also studied (informally) rhetoric and similar topics. A bad analogy spoils the narrative and undermines the point. It seemed perfectly valid for jerrya to raise the question, and raised in my mind the ancient Chinese tale of Zhuangzi and Huizi strolling on Bridge Hao. Zhuangzi: "Look how happy the fish are just swimming around in the river." Huizi: "How do you know they are happy? You are not a fish." Zhuangzi: "And you are not me. How do you know I don't know the fish are happy?" Huizi: "Of course I'm not you, and I don't know what you think; But I do know that you're not a fish, and so you couldn't possibly know the fish are happy." Zhuangzi: "Look, when you asked me how I knew the fish were happy, you already knew that I knew the fish were happy. I knew it from my feelings standing on this bridge." We don't know if the fish know about water or not, and claiming such ignorance really does undermine the point. The points about not noticing culture because you are immersed in it and have no basis for comparison are true, but a poor clichéd analogy is a bad way to start.
        philwelch 15y ago
        I still don't see one bit of explanation as to how an analogy is equivalent to a material conditional. I agree that Derek's analogy was poorly chosen for his audience. Clearly, he should have anticipated that people would be pedantic enough to bikeshed over whether or not fish actually realize they are in water.
        15y ago

jerrya 15y ago

Look, science fiction requires a willing suspension of disbelief. I get that. I get too that the article starts with a metaphor. The metaphor seems bogus to me. And the post was apparently not science fiction. So I said, the metaphor seems bogus to me. Your response seems to be, "it's imagery." Okay, my position is that this premise/metaphor/imagery is probably bogus and as such, hurts the article. I can't suspend my disbelief long enough to get to the rest of the article. F=>X is T for all X. Cast article form of tautology. I appreciate your response to me, as opposed to the downvotes my response received with no explanation.

philwelch 15y ago
It's an analogy, not a logical conditional. It's English, not Lojban.
- jerrya 15y ago
  Yes, thank you. I can see by the points I lose just how much everyone wants to tell me it's an analogy/metaphor/imagery not actual logic. I read stuff all day long where people say, "your analogy is wrong". That actually is part of an argument. I assume Derek would like to be a better writer -- we all would. I assume Derek would like his articles to carry weight -- we all would. His analogy/metaphor/imagery is probably bogus and stopped me in my tracks. I understand how stating my position that I could not get further than that brings down the hammer at HN. Ironically, my stating my own opinion that I cannot buy into his analogy/metaphor/imagery and that his metaphor is wrong AND the consequent hammer of downvotes as HN readers hate on me actually makes Derek's point. I think I get this, thank you. "And yet, it moves"
  - philwelch 15y ago
    Stop being melodramatic. Since I've actually studied how natural language statements map to logical truth functions, I'm honestly mystified as to why you think an analogy is semantically equivalent to a material conditional.
    - ColinWright 15y ago
      You're not the only one who has studied such things. I, too, have studied how natural languages map (or don't map) to the logical constructs in math, and I've also studied (informally) rhetoric and similar topics. A bad analogy spoils the narrative and undermines the point. It seemed perfectly valid for jerrya to raise the question, and raised in my mind the ancient Chinese tale of Zhuangzi and Huizi strolling on Bridge Hao. Zhuangzi: "Look how happy the fish are just swimming around in the river." Huizi: "How do you know they are happy? You are not a fish." Zhuangzi: "And you are not me. How do you know I don't know the fish are happy?" Huizi: "Of course I'm not you, and I don't know what you think; But I do know that you're not a fish, and so you couldn't possibly know the fish are happy." Zhuangzi: "Look, when you asked me how I knew the fish were happy, you already knew that I knew the fish were happy. I knew it from my feelings standing on this bridge." We don't know if the fish know about water or not, and claiming such ignorance really does undermine the point. The points about not noticing culture because you are immersed in it and have no basis for comparison are true, but a poor clichéd analogy is a bad way to start.
      - philwelch 15y ago
        I still don't see one bit of explanation as to how an analogy is equivalent to a material conditional. I agree that Derek's analogy was poorly chosen for his audience. Clearly, he should have anticipated that people would be pedantic enough to bikeshed over whether or not fish actually realize they are in water.
        15y ago