Did you misunderstand the question, again?
In fact did you misunderstand that it is just a question? The question mark ? at then end is a clue.
How could I be fibbing? I did NOT make a statement about any thing. What I did instead was, just ask a question.
By the way, WHAT do you think/BELIEVE I am fibbing about exactly?
Did you MISS the whole point of what I was saying?TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Oct 29, 2018 7:43 am If you understood the Bayesian framework you wouldn't accuse me of "black and white" thinking.
That is; I do NOT understand the bayesian framework at all. I had NOT even heard that name, before, you mentioned it here.
I based my accusation of 'black and white thinking' on what I KNOW of 'black and white thinking', NOT on any such thing with a given label "bayesian framework".
If I understood the "bayesian framework" I may not, or I still may, accuse you of 'black and white thinking'. If I did or not would ALL depend on what I choose to do. WHY do you think/BELIEVE that if I understood the "bayesian framework" then I would NOT accuse you of 'black and white thinking'? Just because one understands a "framework" does NOT necessitate that that person HAS TO, or even would, follow it at all, or follow it exactly and fully, or follow it any where in between.
Is it possible that it is supposedly "my false conclusion", from YOUR perspective, because you did NOT understand what I said and wrote?TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Oct 29, 2018 7:43 amSo whether I said "you don't understand" or "you misunderstand" I am pointing at the same phenomenon: your false conclusion due to lack of information.
See if you can understand this, from this information; If one is NOT aware of some thing, then they obviously could neither understand it nor misunderstand it. If they have NO awareness of some thing, then how could they understand/misunderstand that thing? Does that make sense to you? If some one is unaware of some thing, then that one is unaware of it. Plain and simply true.
I was completely unaware of what the "bayesian framework" IS, other that that is a label given to some thing, which you say is a "tool". So, WHAT the ACTUAL framework IS I am unaware of. If I am unaware of THAT, then I could neither understand it nor misunderstand it. I am unaware of what the actual framework of the "bayesian framework" IS, therefore, I could neither understand nor misunderstand it.
This was NEVER about whether you said; "you don't understand" or "you misunderstand" AT ALL. This is about HOW if I am UNAWARE of some thing, then I could NEITHER misunderstand that thing, nor, understand that thing. To be able to mis-understand some thing one first HAS TO have some understanding in the first place. I could NOT even have AN understanding of the framework you talk about because I am completely UNAWARE of THE framework. Do you NOW understand?
I have NEVER insisted on you using the "correct" phrase to CONVEY YOUR MESSAGE. You convey YOUR message 'absolutely perfectly', all by your self, with YOUR own very WORDS. I just TRY TO clarify what you are actually saying and meaning. I do this by questioning YOU. If you interpret My questions as being some thing other than THAT they are or THAT they are NOT, then either that is my fault alone, or some thing else.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Oct 29, 2018 7:43 amThis would be an example of how you insist on me using the "correct" phrase to convey my message e.g attempting to control language.
I am attempting to understand YOU better. I do this by questioning. Especially when you insist some thing as being True and Right, and especially even more so when your insistence is based solely upon YOUR BELIEFS. I find humor in what actually comes to light through and from My questioning.
Which, by the way, you gave WHILE I was responding and so did not get the link until just now. I did not get it earlier.
Beyond that I am not interested in spending any of my time teaching you.[/quote]
Then it might be of NO real importance anyway?
Thank you for the invite, and especially for allowing Me to decide if I am interested or not.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Oct 29, 2018 7:43 am You are welcome to read the reviews of the book and decide if you are, or aren't interested in the tool.
Here is one review: https://unvarnishedveritas.wordpress.co ... inference/