4 ms·

> There isn't any effective difference between "assume false" and "no evidence for it, so we assume false". This is very unclear to me, but if what you mean is

> There isn't any effective difference between "assume false" and "no evidence for it, so we assume false". This is very unclear to me, but if what you mean is something like "There is no practical difference between supposing something to be false and supposing the thing to be so unlikely that it shouldn't be taken into account in one's decisions" I might agree with you - both that it is true and that something like it is present in the Wikipedia article - and we could go on from that point. >The reason we assume it's false is tangential to the fact that we assume that both the teapot theory and the fighting staircase theory are false. I'm not sure what the "it" is in the "it's" part of this sentence, so I can't respond to this part of your comment.

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
> > There isn't any effective difference between "assume false" and "no evidence for it, so we assume false" > This is very unclear to me, but if what you mean is something like "There is no practical difference between supposing something to be false and supposing the thing to be so unlikely that it shouldn't be taken into account in one's decisions" I might agree with you Not sure what part of that is unclear to you, but feel free to ask clarifying questions. I did indeed phrase what I said correctly. Your phrasing is also correct. To tie the two together, it is as likely, with our currently-zero affirmative evidence, that the teapot exists, as it is, with our currently-zero affirmative evidence, that the fighting staircase theory is true. Thus, if you effectively treat the teapot's existence as false, you should also effectively treat the fighting staircase theory as false. > > The reason we assume it's false is tangential to the fact that we assume that both the teapot theory and the fighting staircase theory are false. > I'm not sure what the "it" is in the "it's" part of this sentence, so I can't respond to this part of your comment. Again, you're always free to ask me questions if you don't understand something! In this case, "it" refers to the teapot theory and the fighting staircase theory, since the two are analogous here.
- calderknight 3y ago
  So, you no longer claim that > by default, it is untrue but instead that by default it is effectively untrue? And by that you mean that we can act in practical matters act as if it is untrue, even though we do not actually know whether that is the case?
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    I meant what I said, and also what you said is correct, too. Indeed, effectively untrue means untrue for all intents and purposes (including even seriously discussing), and both the teapot and the fighting staircase theory are equally: untrue, effectively untrue, practically untrue, and any other semantic game you wish to play around the word untrue, for the same reason as each other. They have an equal amount of evidence of their truth, after all.
    - calderknight 3y ago
      You have said two separate things on the same matter. So, just to clear out any ambiguity, could you please clarify for me which is your claim: That we should assume these things to be false, or merely effectively false?
      - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        I think the answer to that is made clear by the following passage, which I'll reformat and expand to include your latest desired semantics: > Indeed, effectively untrue means untrue for all intents and purposes (including even seriously discussing), and both the teapot and the fighting staircase theory are equally: > - untrue, > - effectively untrue, > - practically untrue, > - something we assume to be untrue, > - and any other semantic game you wish to play around the word untrue, > for the same reason as each other. They have an equal amount of evidence of their truth, after all :) At this point, you seem to be coming up with new ways of wording that the teapot and fighting staircase theories are untrue, so if you come up with more, simply add them to the above 5 item list! And just to be clear, I'm not claiming anything myself, merely examining and judging the claims of those who lend any credence to the totally unsupported teapot or fighting staircase theories, and pointing out that the results of that examination and judgement don't look good for 'em.
        calderknight 3y ago
        You say that the teapot and the fighting staircase are equally untrue. But you don't say whether they are untrue. You could hold these two positions simultaneously without there being any contradiction: * they are both equally untrue. * they are both true

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago

> > There isn't any effective difference between "assume false" and "no evidence for it, so we assume false" > This is very unclear to me, but if what you mean is something like "There is no practical difference between supposing something to be false and supposing the thing to be so unlikely that it shouldn't be taken into account in one's decisions" I might agree with you Not sure what part of that is unclear to you, but feel free to ask clarifying questions. I did indeed phrase what I said correctly. Your phrasing is also correct. To tie the two together, it is as likely, with our currently-zero affirmative evidence, that the teapot exists, as it is, with our currently-zero affirmative evidence, that the fighting staircase theory is true. Thus, if you effectively treat the teapot's existence as false, you should also effectively treat the fighting staircase theory as false. > > The reason we assume it's false is tangential to the fact that we assume that both the teapot theory and the fighting staircase theory are false. > I'm not sure what the "it" is in the "it's" part of this sentence, so I can't respond to this part of your comment. Again, you're always free to ask me questions if you don't understand something! In this case, "it" refers to the teapot theory and the fighting staircase theory, since the two are analogous here.

calderknight 3y ago
So, you no longer claim that > by default, it is untrue but instead that by default it is effectively untrue? And by that you mean that we can act in practical matters act as if it is untrue, even though we do not actually know whether that is the case?
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  I meant what I said, and also what you said is correct, too. Indeed, effectively untrue means untrue for all intents and purposes (including even seriously discussing), and both the teapot and the fighting staircase theory are equally: untrue, effectively untrue, practically untrue, and any other semantic game you wish to play around the word untrue, for the same reason as each other. They have an equal amount of evidence of their truth, after all.
  - calderknight 3y ago
    You have said two separate things on the same matter. So, just to clear out any ambiguity, could you please clarify for me which is your claim: That we should assume these things to be false, or merely effectively false?
    - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
      I think the answer to that is made clear by the following passage, which I'll reformat and expand to include your latest desired semantics: > Indeed, effectively untrue means untrue for all intents and purposes (including even seriously discussing), and both the teapot and the fighting staircase theory are equally: > - untrue, > - effectively untrue, > - practically untrue, > - something we assume to be untrue, > - and any other semantic game you wish to play around the word untrue, > for the same reason as each other. They have an equal amount of evidence of their truth, after all :) At this point, you seem to be coming up with new ways of wording that the teapot and fighting staircase theories are untrue, so if you come up with more, simply add them to the above 5 item list! And just to be clear, I'm not claiming anything myself, merely examining and judging the claims of those who lend any credence to the totally unsupported teapot or fighting staircase theories, and pointing out that the results of that examination and judgement don't look good for 'em.
      - calderknight 3y ago
        You say that the teapot and the fighting staircase are equally untrue. But you don't say whether they are untrue. You could hold these two positions simultaneously without there being any contradiction: * they are both equally untrue. * they are both true