the prime failure of public opinion

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: the prime failure of public opinion

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Walker post_id=511253 time=1621351855 user_id=11599]
[quote=Advocate post_id=511248 time=1621351015 user_id=15238]
[quote=Walker post_id=511247 time=1621350903 user_id=11599]
Fill a big jar with jelly beans.
Have 10,000 average people honestly guess the unknown number.
Average the guesses.
Count the jelly beans.
The average guesstimate will be close to if not identical to the actual number.

Therefore, true intellectuals and not the pretenders know to listen to average.
Hopefully this will correct your erroneous notions of average.

(ain't science wonderful?)
[/quote]

That's not how knowledge works. If the best you can do is collective guess, you're not doing intelligence, much less philosophy.
[/quote]
Physics is simply the best guess, with all knowledge considered.

So, are you saying that the google search engine should slant information searches towards a particular political world view?
[/quote]

Science is rigor.
Logic is a subset of rigor that always replicates.
Math is logic related to quantity.
Physics is math related to externally measurable quantity.

There is not a speck of room in any of those for popular opinions. Physics is not a guess like an average of all guesses, it's a hypothesis which best explains all available evidence, just like a scientific theory is not the same thing as a vernacular theory. I said nothing about Google.
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: the prime failure of public opinion

Post by Advocate »

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=511254 time=1621351952 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=511244 time=1621349483 user_id=15238]
[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=511241 time=1621348874 user_id=9431]

Well, not until you define precisely who gets to say who [i]they[/i] (the "better"ones) are." If that person is [i]them[/i], then it's only a "thinks so."

So who decides?
[/quote]

"Who gets to decide?" is a separate question that applies to All ideologies, so i ignore when it's referenced generally against any specific one. It's a distraction.
[/quote]
No, "who gets to decide is YOUR question."

In a democracy, the answer is "everybody." That ends the question. Now we know.

In your elitist system, the question of who gets to be elite becomes primary. If we can't find them, then your system will never work; because we'll have no way of knowing who's in the "better" group, and who is not.

So answer, and quit wriggling.
[/quote]

I'm talking about theory, you're trying to find a specific use case to deny the validity of my theory. It won't work because you're adding and changing variables. We're not talking about the same thing at all.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: the prime failure of public opinion

Post by Walker »

Advocate wrote: Tue May 18, 2021 4:40 pm
Walker wrote: Tue May 18, 2021 4:30 pm
Advocate wrote: Tue May 18, 2021 4:16 pm

That's not how knowledge works. If the best you can do is collective guess, you're not doing intelligence, much less philosophy.
Physics is simply the best guess, with all knowledge considered.

So, are you saying that the google search engine should slant information searches towards a particular political world view?
Science is rigor.
Logic is a subset of rigor that always replicates.
Math is logic related to quantity.
Physics is math related to externally measurable quantity.

There is not a speck of room in any of those for popular opinions. Physics is not a guess like an average of all guesses, it's a hypothesis which best explains all available evidence, just like a scientific theory is not the same thing as a vernacular theory. I said nothing about Google.
Guessing the number of jelly beans is exactly like physics.

In physics and jelly bean counting, all knowledge is taken into consideration, then a guess is made.

10,000 average samples of “all knowledge” will yield reality, i.e., the correct number of jelly beans.

The intellectuals who incorporated the democrat election of representatives for the public were well aware of this, and this worked to the advantage of of the intellectual, protected from the tyranny of government by the constitution, unlike those who Stalin killed.

And lest we forget the thread connection, intellectuals have above average ideas.
Last edited by Walker on Tue May 18, 2021 4:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: the prime failure of public opinion

Post by Immanuel Can »

Advocate wrote: Tue May 18, 2021 4:41 pm ...you're trying to find a specific use case to deny the validity of my theory...
Let me pretend to grant you that. It's "just a theory."

But it fails in practice, because you can't find these "better" people you say you think should rule.

So you have a theory with no possible application to the real world. :shock:

Congratulations. Truly an achievement. Well done.
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: the prime failure of public opinion

Post by Advocate »

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=511259 time=1621353170 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=511257 time=1621352508 user_id=15238]
...you're trying to find a specific use case to deny the validity of my theory...
[/quote]
Let me pretend to grant you that. It's "just a theory."

But it fails in practice, because you can't find these "better" people you say you think should rule.

So you have a theory with [i]no possible application to the real world.[/i] :shock:

Congratulations. Truly an achievement. Well done.
[/quote]

It's just a separate question, both broadly and deeply explored elsewhere. It's a distraction. You're a distraction. Start another thread about it. Never too many, right?
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: the prime failure of public opinion

Post by Walker »

Advocate wrote: Tue May 18, 2021 4:40 pm There is not a speck of room in any of those for popular opinions. Physics is not a guess like an average of all guesses, it's a hypothesis which best explains all available evidence, just like a scientific theory is not the same thing as a vernacular theory. I said nothing about Google.
Based on this, would you say that consensus is inconsistent with science, and therefore anyone who considers "climate science consensus" to be justification for the veracity of computer modeling climate predictions, for 100 years into the future, is in fact a certifiable idiot?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: the prime failure of public opinion

Post by Immanuel Can »

Advocate wrote: Tue May 18, 2021 5:02 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 18, 2021 4:52 pm
Advocate wrote: Tue May 18, 2021 4:41 pm ...you're trying to find a specific use case to deny the validity of my theory...
Let me pretend to grant you that. It's "just a theory."

But it fails in practice, because you can't find these "better" people you say you think should rule.

So you have a theory with no possible application to the real world. :shock:

Congratulations. Truly an achievement. Well done.
It's just a separate question...
A "separate question" whether your theory has any possibility at all of being implemented? Hardly.

You're running. And I don't blame you. It's a bad, elitist theory, and one that cannot be implemented in real life, obviously, without collapsing into tyranny by the deciders of "better." And you're at pains not to face that obvious conclusion, I guess.
Post Reply