Absolutely. His English is great. But philosophy, where you string together a lot of abstractions (and he does this too often) is extremely challenging, and then for the readers. Unfortunately I've known him for a while, and he gets snippy fast, is utterly convinced of the rightness of his points and doesn't seem to consider that his language may make what is so obvious to him less obvious to others. I mean, I don't agree with him on a number things. We have our differences, but the language issue and his dismissals of any disagreement in blunt terms add to the problem. I often find that he doesn't really understand specific objections and counterarguments. Which ends up making him seem evasive or manipulative, while I think it is more likely...yeah, he just didn't get the point being made.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue May 17, 2022 9:28 pm I think he's from somewhere in Eastern Europe and English definitely isn't his native language. So his English seems pretty good all things considered
Vestibule Architect's lazy false precision problem
-
- Posts: 6851
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm
Re: Vestibule Architect's lazy false precision problem
Last edited by Iwannaplato on Wed May 18, 2022 10:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
- FlashDangerpants
- Posts: 6520
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm
Re: Vestibule Architect's lazy false precision problem
I see what you mean. And I guess he's seen this convo because in some other thread he's put me on super-double-ultra-ignore now.
-
- Posts: 6851
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm
Re: Vestibule Architect's lazy false precision problem
Well, I have him on ignore, again. But unfortunately he is so prolific here I can't avoid seeing his endless threads and quotes of him in the posts of others. It's funny. If you point out problems in a position it is assumed 1) you have the opposite opinion, because there are only two and one cannot be agnostic on the issue. IOW there may be other positions, that are ontological positions outside those two. And one can also be agnostic. 2) you cannot possibly grasp what the person is saying 3) you must be responding out of fear.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed May 18, 2022 7:25 am I see what you mean. And I guess he's seen this convo because in some other thread he's put me on super-double-ultra-ignore now.
I can't tell you the amount of times I have been lectured by people about Buddhism, physics (especially quantum phenomena), nihilism, sensory perception and more, when it's clear to me I hit those ideas when they were swaddled in diapers. It's like dealing with someone who just quit smoking and thinks you're a smoker.
This, of course, includes many other people, not just VA.
- FlashDangerpants
- Posts: 6520
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm
Re: Vestibule Architect's lazy false precision problem
Yeah, well I guess he's going to be content to keep doing the same thing the same way for longer than you will be able to keep finding new ways to respond to the same regular broadcast. So this ethical theory sub sort of belongs to him now.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed May 18, 2022 10:33 amWell, I have him on ignore, again. But unfortunately he is so prolific here I can't avoid seeing his endless threads and quotes of him in the posts of others. It's funny. If you point out problems in a position it is assumed 1) you have the opposite opinion, because there are only two and one cannot be agnostic on the issue. IOW there may be other positions, that are ontological positions outside those two. And one can also be agnostic. 2) you cannot possibly grasp what the person is saying 3) you must be responding out of fear.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed May 18, 2022 7:25 am I see what you mean. And I guess he's seen this convo because in some other thread he's put me on super-double-ultra-ignore now.
I can't tell you the amount of times I have been lectured by people about Buddhism, physics (especially quantum phenomena), nihilism, sensory perception and more, when it's clear to me I hit those ideas when they were swaddled in diapers. It's like dealing with someone who just quit smoking and thinks you're a smoker.
This, of course, includes many other people, not just VA.
Truth be told, the alternatives aren't that impressive. It's mostly just people replying to each other's arguments with repeated statements of their own creed, paying no attention to whatever argument they are responding to. Spectrum disorders aren't the only way to be horribly bad at this stuff, they aren't even the most effective.
-
- Posts: 6851
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm
Re: Vestibule Architect's lazy false precision problem
Yes, I do notice how often repeating or at best rephrasing one's original argument is seen as a response, even if this response never engages with the points the other person made.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 8:26 am It's mostly just people replying to each other's arguments with repeated statements of their own creed, paying no attention to whatever argument they are responding to.
- FlashDangerpants
- Posts: 6520
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm
Re: Vestibule Architect's lazy false precision problem
Not real numbers. You are commiting the fallacy of false precision, hoping to justify an absurd definition of "what is fact".Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 8:02 amBy definition of what is fact conditioned upon a specific FSK, with the scientific FSK as the standard of true and realistic at say 90/100, then astrological facts has 1/100 degree of credibility, i.e. taken to be non-sensical.2 Are what people have claimed as astrological facts, grounded on a specific astrological FSK, true and realistic? Spoiler: the answer is no. Therefore, 'grounding on a specific FSK' can't be a sufficient condition for what constitutes a fact. The reliability of an FSK doesn't and can't come merely from the existence of the FSK. Something else is necessary, viz, evidence from the reality that anti-realists deny.
Nothing can be 1% fact.
-
- Posts: 6851
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm
Re: Vestibule Architect's lazy false precision problem
It's funny: what is the methodology he used to come up with 90/100? It couldn't be scientific methodology itself? How could be check to see if that number is correct or even standard deviation and standard error. It certainly seems like he is the epistemological method that evaluates and gives numbers to FSKs. I can't see science (or astrology) or neuroscience generating those numbers. It's not in their methodologies. So, is is some unnamed FSK that allows him to spout numbers, and in an odd form, as a percentage. One could look at scientific conclusions and then evaluate if they match reality or whatever one's criteria are, but then....what is that FSK based on. It has to determine if the conclusions are correct. And I believe we would then wonder why science is the more credible if there is another FSK being used to detemine the accuracy of science. To test for accurary you'd need a method of finding the truth and then comparing its conclusions to those of science, astrology, etc.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 8:55 amNot real numbers. You are commiting the fallacy of false precision, hoping to justify an absurd definition of "what is fact".Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 8:02 amBy definition of what is fact conditioned upon a specific FSK, with the scientific FSK as the standard of true and realistic at say 90/100, then astrological facts has 1/100 degree of credibility, i.e. taken to be non-sensical.2 Are what people have claimed as astrological facts, grounded on a specific astrological FSK, true and realistic? Spoiler: the answer is no. Therefore, 'grounding on a specific FSK' can't be a sufficient condition for what constitutes a fact. The reliability of an FSK doesn't and can't come merely from the existence of the FSK. Something else is necessary, viz, evidence from the reality that anti-realists deny.
Nothing can be 1% fact.
- FlashDangerpants
- Posts: 6520
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm
Re: Vestibule Architect's lazy false precision problem
Oh he makes the numbers up that much is obvious given that I've seen him rate genocide at 95/100 badnesses but an individual murder at 99.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 2:15 pmIt's funny: what is the methodology he used to come up with 90/100? It couldn't be scientific methodology itself?FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 8:55 amNot real numbers. You are commiting the fallacy of false precision, hoping to justify an absurd definition of "what is fact".Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 8:02 am
By definition of what is fact conditioned upon a specific FSK, with the scientific FSK as the standard of true and realistic at say 90/100, then astrological facts has 1/100 degree of credibility, i.e. taken to be non-sensical.
Nothing can be 1% fact.
Put bluntly, if these numbers aren't mere intuitions, it's unfortunate that they happen to be indistinguishable from mere intuition. So the only rational interpretation is that Venal Antiquity is passing off intuitive numbers as measurements and calling you names for noticing his blatant fraud.
There must be some statistical fact involved because he has granted himself a specific 5% margin of error.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 2:15 pm How could be check to see if that number is correct or even standard deviation and standard error.
So far he has "confidence" that something can be done to undergird these numbers and justify that margin.
You should share this "confidence" because of ... well I have no idea, he doesn't inspire my confidence.
He says he isn't going to tell you what his real argument is because this is just a forum and not worth his time ...
... but he did say this at least two years ago and has put in an awful lot of hours since then.
All of that is covered by the secret arguments you are required to believe in but not permitted to know of. Failure to adhere to this dogma makes you a bastard dogmatist. He's quite confident that he has thought everything through and that therefore he must be correct, if that helps spark your faith.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 2:15 pm It certainly seems like he is the epistemological method that evaluates and gives numbers to FSKs. I can't see science (or astrology) or neuroscience generating those numbers. It's not in their methodologies. So, is is some unnamed FSK that allows him to spout numbers, and in an odd form, as a percentage. One could look at scientific conclusions and then evaluate if they match reality or whatever one's criteria are, but then....what is that FSK based on. It has to determine if the conclusions are correct. And I believe we would then wonder why science is the more credible if there is another FSK being used to detemine the accuracy of science. To test for accurary you'd need a method of finding the truth and then comparing its conclusions to those of science, astrology, etc.
- FlashDangerpants
- Posts: 6520
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm
Re: Vestibule Architect's lazy false precision problem
Oh God, I see from the Introduce Yourself sub that prof is now returned as "thinkdr". That guy is basically VA's grand inspiration for this number-values-for-morals bullshit. He has a trick where he argues that if a person has thoughts or feelings about an object, that objec has additional properties it would not have had before, and thus is morally important to the factor of an infinite number divided by an uncountable one. Maybe he can teach VA that trick.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 2:15 pm It's funny: what is the methodology he used to come up with 90/100? It couldn't be scientific methodology itself?
-
- Posts: 6851
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm
Re: Vestibule Architect's lazy false precision problem
I like that because it is so opposed to realism (lol). There are not ding an sich, but they get additional (more than they would have otherwise) qualities if perceived or considered by a human.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 8:28 am He has a trick where he argues that if a person has thoughts or feelings about an object, that objec has additional properties it would not have had before,......
Re: Vestibule Architect's lazy false precision problem
That's literally the premise of all emergentism.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 8:28 am He has a trick where he argues that if a person has thoughts or feelings about an object, that objec has additional properties it would not have had before, and thus is morally important to the factor of an infinite number divided by an uncountable one.
In so far as you are trying to disparage it you are revealing yourself as a reductionist. Would justifies just about every accusation of small-mindedness laid against you.
- FlashDangerpants
- Posts: 6520
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm
Re: Vestibule Architect's lazy false precision problem
Now he's measuring God
What a very precise number he got there.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 30, 2022 8:40 am The claim God exists as real and fact by theists based a theistic FSK would be rated 0.000001/100 i.e. is an impossible and a non-starter in contrast to the scientific FSK as the standard.
- FlashDangerpants
- Posts: 6520
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm
Re: Vestibule Architect's lazy false precision problem
Lol, the boy has completely lost it now
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 30, 2022 9:47 am As such if we rank the credibility of the scientific fact at say n/100 then the credibility of the legal judgment would be (n-x)/100.
Any rational person would be able accept this formula as explained above.
What is 'n' or 'x' will depend on the context and circumstances.
-
- Posts: 6851
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm
Re: Vestibule Architect's lazy false precision problem
I think somewhere he says he is using numbers sort of tentatively, but still that a really odd sentence. He's mixing up FSKs with a claim. Is it the theistic FSK that has those chances of the claim? Like the whole thing could be saying that the claim in a scientific FSK is rated .00000001. But that's absurd, since no (coherent) scientist is going to weigh on the probability there is a God. What research does he or she use to come up with a number? And, of course, that number he wrote does not entail that the claim is an impossible nor a non-starter. It's just extremely unlikely to be true according to, well, whom is not clear. Extremely unlikely events, much more unlikely than that are considered real in physics and part of calculations, etc. But the grammar in the sentence is so confusing that what he is actually asserting is hard to get.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon May 30, 2022 8:44 am Now he's measuring GodWhat a very precise number he got there.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 30, 2022 8:40 am The claim God exists as real and fact by theists based a theistic FSK would be rated 0.000001/100 i.e. is an impossible and a non-starter in contrast to the scientific FSK as the standard.
This....
...is really quite remarkable. Look at that 'Thus'!!Whatever others claimed as truth and facts from other FSKs should be contrasted the scientific FSK as the standard and rated accordingly.
Thus the legal truth that 'X is a convicted murder' based heavily on DNA evidence should be rated highly say at 75/00 which is more credible than of the scientific claims of the BB or Black Holes.
Because claims based on other (than science's) FSK since it is the standard, evidence
in a court case based (generally in part) on DNA is more credible than scientific claims about the Big Bang and Black Holes.!!!!!
Since the knowledge about DNA comes from science AS DOES that of BB and BHs, they share the same FSK, so his Thus makes no sense at all.
And how does one crossover fields like this? It seems like because DNA evidence comes from science it is rated highly, but it is not research conclusions, it is a technical conclusion, in the specific court case. IOW all sorts of human biases and error and even corruption play roles in the conclusion that X is a murderer - the DNA evidence might be false. He is confusion research conclusions with are not about single cases, but the results of large numbers of repetitions and the conclusions are general, with scientific ideas in practical specific application in society. The latter case has a much greater liklihood of intentional and unintentional error, and technical problems. Yet.....somehow.....he knows that a conclusion in a court case using DNA must be better than the scientific research conclusions about BB and BHs.
And is it all claims about those things. There are all sorts of types of claims about those things.
It's loopy.
Last edited by Iwannaplato on Mon May 30, 2022 2:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 6851
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm
Re: Vestibule Architect's lazy false precision problem
This would imply some meta-FSK which can calculate success rates for scientific facts and legal judgments. And what is that FSK. And over what period of time does it evaluate. Something considered scientific fact might appear true not, then later not, then be reaffirmed decades later. And to come up with a percentage for science or law, you would need to judge how many conclusions are considered true (by what body/FSK/groFlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon May 30, 2022 12:04 pm Lol, the boy has completely lost it now
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 30, 2022 9:47 am As such if we rank the credibility of the scientific fact at say n/100 then the credibility of the legal judgment would be (n-x)/100.
Any rational person would be able accept this formula as explained above.
What is 'n' or 'x' will depend on the context and circumstances.
up?).