12 ms·

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

by 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.
    - ColinWright 15y ago
      I can't speak for your original interlocutor, but for me, it went like this: Fish don't know about water ... Hang on. Firstly, you don't know that. Secondly, it's plausible that some do. OK, I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Is this a premise? An analogy? Either way it's either wrong or pretty weak - why should I bother reading the rest? I mean, if it's all this bad, then it'll be a waste of time ... Perhaps someone else's thought processes go like this: If this is an analogy it's really poor, so I guess it must be a premise. But it's wrong, so now I really don't know what's going on here ... It reads like a starting point. It reads like a fact that will be built on. To some, that's bad, and possibly jerrya was just trying to point that out. From that point of view it is, perhaps, you who is bikeshedding. Perhaps you should take jerrya's comment slightly less literally, and more as you would have us read the original article. But that's just how it seems to me. Likely I'm wrong too. But one thing's now for sure, I've expressed my views, and I'm unlikely to spend more time on this question. http://xkcd.com/386/ http://xkcd.com/386/
      - philwelch 15y ago
        So you can't be bothered to read more than five words before formulating an opinion, yet you write several paragraphs expressing that opinion. And then you downvote me for asking how an analogy equates to a material conditional?
        ColinWright 15y ago
        Interesting how you assume I downvoted you. I didn't. Research shows that opinions are formed very, very quickly. Further, I did read the article, even though my initial reactions were so negative. I did that because I know that sometimes people don't write well, but their ideas might still be worth considering. My comments were born of trying to help people understand how apparently small issues in their writing can have apparently disproportionate effects on their audiences. So, let's see. You said: So you can't be bothered to read more than five words That was wrong. ... before formulating an opinion, Your outrage contradicts findings in research. ... yet you write several paragraphs expressing that opinion. Yes. Clear expression of ideas matters, and sometimes the "instant quip" is a bad way to get an idea across. And then you downvote me No, I didn't. ... for asking how an analogy equates to a material conditional? But that wasn't the point. I tried to explain how there were multiple ways to look at that opening "idea," and that none of them actually worked. So clearly I've failed in getting my point across. As Samuel Johnson said (although other sources attribute it to James Boswell): Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding.

by jerrya 15y ago

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.
  - ColinWright 15y ago
    I can't speak for your original interlocutor, but for me, it went like this: Fish don't know about water ... Hang on. Firstly, you don't know that. Secondly, it's plausible that some do. OK, I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Is this a premise? An analogy? Either way it's either wrong or pretty weak - why should I bother reading the rest? I mean, if it's all this bad, then it'll be a waste of time ... Perhaps someone else's thought processes go like this: If this is an analogy it's really poor, so I guess it must be a premise. But it's wrong, so now I really don't know what's going on here ... It reads like a starting point. It reads like a fact that will be built on. To some, that's bad, and possibly jerrya was just trying to point that out. From that point of view it is, perhaps, you who is bikeshedding. Perhaps you should take jerrya's comment slightly less literally, and more as you would have us read the original article. But that's just how it seems to me. Likely I'm wrong too. But one thing's now for sure, I've expressed my views, and I'm unlikely to spend more time on this question. http://xkcd.com/386/ http://xkcd.com/386/
    - philwelch 15y ago
      So you can't be bothered to read more than five words before formulating an opinion, yet you write several paragraphs expressing that opinion. And then you downvote me for asking how an analogy equates to a material conditional?
      - ColinWright 15y ago
        Interesting how you assume I downvoted you. I didn't. Research shows that opinions are formed very, very quickly. Further, I did read the article, even though my initial reactions were so negative. I did that because I know that sometimes people don't write well, but their ideas might still be worth considering. My comments were born of trying to help people understand how apparently small issues in their writing can have apparently disproportionate effects on their audiences. So, let's see. You said: So you can't be bothered to read more than five words That was wrong. ... before formulating an opinion, Your outrage contradicts findings in research. ... yet you write several paragraphs expressing that opinion. Yes. Clear expression of ideas matters, and sometimes the "instant quip" is a bad way to get an idea across. And then you downvote me No, I didn't. ... for asking how an analogy equates to a material conditional? But that wasn't the point. I tried to explain how there were multiple ways to look at that opening "idea," and that none of them actually worked. So clearly I've failed in getting my point across. As Samuel Johnson said (although other sources attribute it to James Boswell): Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding.