calderknight

9 ms·

61.
by calderknight 3y ago
If a lot of theories made sense given the evidence we had, why would we need new evidence in order to call the theory into question? The theory was never not in question.
62.
by calderknight 3y ago
Where is it a crime to block advertisements?
63.
by calderknight 3y ago
A lot of theories make sense given the evidence we have.
64.
by calderknight 3y ago
I don't think people are suggesting it is wrong by default, just that it's not correct by default, and is in this case the theory it has arrived at is deeply underdetermined by the evidence.
65.
by calderknight 3y ago
You're conflating cancellation and cancel-culture
66.
by calderknight 3y ago
Practically untrue and untrue don't mean the same thing. You could argue that they could be treated as if they mean the same thing (in some limited scope), but that is different to them meaning the same thing, and, since such an argume
67.
by calderknight 3y ago
>Ever been to the Google cafeteria nope
68.
by calderknight 3y ago
OK, that's what I had thought you meant! But that position isn't found anywhere in the Wikipedia article. Also, what if two contradictory propositions each have zero evidence, are they then both untrue?
69.
by 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.
70.
by 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?
71.
by 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
72.
by calderknight 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 differe
73.
by calderknight 3y ago
> That's just it – there isn't. This is your position, but it's not a position presented in the Wikipedia article. > we should, and do, treat it unproven Do you mean disproved here, rather than unproven? I think that wh
74.
by calderknight 3y ago
There's a difference between thinking something false and thinking the thing insufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. Russell's teapot argument is about so-called unfalsifiable theories, not about all things.
75.
by calderknight 3y ago
You have cited that Wikipedia page five times. But it doesn't say anything about there being such a default view.
76.
by calderknight 3y ago
The point of Russell's argument is that we should not believe in the Christian god/the teapot. Not that we should believe that those things do not exist. It's an argument against believing without evidence, not for believing
77.
by calderknight 3y ago
If there's no evidence about a situation, there's no evidence for any theory about the situation. There's no evidence for the proposition A . There's no evidence for the proposition not A . By your reasoning we have
78.
by calderknight 3y ago
I don't understand what you are saying. Isn't it common on internet sites to allow the user to create the headline for the link? Is this what you mean? They just made their own title for it? Or is there some way to make it look li
79.
by calderknight 3y ago
Didn't they start to succeed immediately with Mao (mass education, elimination of war-lords, expelling of foreign powers, etc.), and aren't the further successes you mention only possible due to Mao's achievements?
80.
by calderknight 3y ago
OK, so, by Communist China you meant China after Mao took power but before capitalist economic systems developed. Everything that has happened in China is possible only because of the victories of communism. From a non-existent school syste
81.
by calderknight 3y ago
Finkelstein was cancelled by the right. Most prominently by Alan Deshowitz, lawyer for Donald Trump, Jeffrey Epstein, etc. As a result, he was denied tenure and was never able to get a job as a professor, other than occasionally working as
82.
by calderknight 3y ago
You seem to be focusing on something quite beside the point. Anyway. Under communism, China went from being "the sick man of Asia" to the most economically successful and politically powerful country in Asia, no? It's the gre
83.
by calderknight 3y ago
Can you please point out for me specifically where you and I disagree?
84.
by calderknight 3y ago
Can you state which parts of the popular conception of cancellation are fantasy? What is it that people have in mind? that thing which practically never happens in real life. Norman Finkelstein is as left-wing as it gets. He views wokism as
85.
by calderknight 3y ago
It seems that you have come to agree with me, but haven't realised it yet! You're saying that we must look at more than just the skewed sample, and that's exactly my point.
86.
by calderknight 3y ago
Russia, China, Vietnam. Anyway, you're being illogical. A flawed argument will remain just as flawed when it is used to reach a true conclusion as when it is used to reach a false conclusion. If you want to prove me wrong, show that it
87.
by calderknight 3y ago
Stallman was cancelled. If the repercussions he faced were just, he was nonetheless cancelled. If the repercussions have turned out to be only temporary, he was nonetheless cancelled. In general, you seem to think that because these peopl
88.
by calderknight 3y ago
Any number of things may be true. But one cannot sensibly infer those things from this sample of people that is very far from being a random sample, but is actually a heavily selected sample. If you're really interested in the state
89.
by calderknight 3y ago
There is a difference between "cancelled" and "permanently cancelled and also hated by all". One can be cancelled but still adored by the masses - see Norman Finkelstein One can be cancelled but still adored by minority
90.
by calderknight 3y ago
Yes, I would say so, on the average. I think that people leaving a country are more likely to dislike that country than those staying.

More ›