What could make morality objective?

[uwot]

But all of existence (being, reality, the universe, the multiverse, the multi-multiverse, and all other inductive types) is the evidence for god?!?

Granted. And a pile of presents by the chimney is evidence for Santa.

And that's how underdeterminism works. Which is to say that it doesn't.

Underdeterminism isn't meant to 'work', it just is.

That's what falsification fixes.

What experiment would you conduct to determine whether a supernatural being exists?

[Skepdick]

Granted. And a pile of presents by the chimney is evidence for Santa.

Sure. But that hypothesis is falsifiable when you catch your parents planting the gifts by the chimney.

Underdeterminism isn't meant to 'work', it just is.

Is it? How did you determine that given the alternative? Overdetermination.

What experiment would you conduct to determine whether a supernatural being exists?

If a supernatural being caused reality, then I will test for the existence of reality - it checks out!

I can't falsify it, but hey!

[uwot]

The confidence interval is the semantic in which my assertion is meant to be interpreted.

Uh huh. So show me where the confidence interval fits in here:

The derivative of the mathematical function which represents the historical murder rate over centuries of data is a certain value.

That value is not positive (murder is not increasing), and it's not zero (murder is not steady).

Murder is decreasing.

That's 2:1 unlikely, or just above 3 decibels of evidence.

[Skepdick]

Uh huh. So show me where the confidence interval fits in here:

I didn't state my confidence interval. Somewhat intentionally, I left it implicit rather than explicit.
But I gave absolutely everything you need to calculate it for yourself. If you know how.

You could say I was playing my hand closer to my chest, given my understanding of Philosophers' strategies.

It fits in exactly in you (mis?) understanding the difference between 1/3 (n=5) and 1/3 (n=50000)

[uwot]

Sidebar - and sorry if this is obvious: the expression 'certain knowledge' is a misattribution, because it's those who 'have' knowledge who can be more or less certain. Certainty is an attitude or state-of-mind, and knowledge can have neither.

Well yeah, but I think we know what people mean by it.

[uwot]

I didn't state my confidence interval. Somewhat intentionally, I left it implicit rather than explicit.

For the benefit of anyone who thinks Skepdick isn't talking utter bollocks this is his argument:

Murder rates can:
1. Go up.
2. Stay the same.
3. Go down.
Given that there are 3 possibilities, the chance of any one of them being the case is 2:1 against.

This

It fits in exactly in you (mis?) understanding the difference between 1/3 (n=5) and 1/3 (n=50000)

makes fuck all difference.

[Skepdick]

I didn't state my confidence interval. Somewhat intentionally, I left it implicit rather than explicit.

For the benefit of anyone who thinks Skepdick isn't talking utter bollocks this is his argument:

Murder rates can:
1. Go up.
2. Stay the same.
3. Go down.
Given that there are 3 possibilities, the chance of any one of them being the case is 2:1 against.

This

It fits in exactly in you (mis?) understanding the difference between 1/3 (n=5) and 1/3 (n=50000)

makes fuck all difference.

And that is what statistical ignorance looks like.

[uwot]

And that is what statistical ignorance looks like.

Fair enough Skepdick; educate me.

[Skepdick]

And that is what statistical ignorance looks like.

Fair enough Skepdick; educate me.

Do you see a difference between 1/3 (calculated from a sample size of 5) and 1/3 (calculated from a sample size of 500000) ?

Either it's "all the same" to you or it isn't.

[uwot]

Do you see a difference between 1/3 (calculated from a sample size of 5) and 1/3 (calculated from a sample size of 500000) ?

Yes Skepdick, I do. Do you see the absurdity of pretending that you calculated the odds of murder rates decreasing being 2:1 against from 500 years worth of data?

[Skepdick]

Yes Skepdick, I do. Do you see the absurdity of pretending that you calculated the odds of murder rates decreasing being 2:1 against from 500 years worth of data?

It is 2:1 against! It's the inverse of 1:3 FOR.

The odds for murder going UP were also 2:1 against (1:3 FOR)
The odds for murder remaining steady were also 2:1 against (1:3 FOR)

That's simply because of the fact that there are two competing hypotheses.

Any one of them being true is 2:1 against (1:3 FOR)

It's a PRIOR probability!

I can't wait to hear what objection you might bring to the table that doesn't actually strengthen my argument. Because the 3 decibels I gave you was a conservative number.

Good poker hand indeed!

[Peter Holmes]

Sidebar - and sorry if this is obvious: the expression 'certain knowledge' is a misattribution, because it's those who 'have' knowledge who can be more or less certain. Certainty is an attitude or state-of-mind, and knowledge can have neither.

Well yeah, but I think we know what people mean by it.

I think it matters. If what we call knowledge is neither certain nor uncertain, many issues in epistemology look completely different. It changes the questions altogether. Nothing I've worked out yet - just a structural confusion that struck me, like 'true belief' and 'abstract noun'.

[Skepdick]

No philosopher of the last two hundred years has held that position--except me. If there is such a crowd it is a very small one.

You only left out Wittgenstein.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Certainty

[uwot]

Yes Skepdick, I do. Do you see the absurdity of pretending that you calculated the odds of murder rates decreasing being 2:1 against from 500 years worth of data?

It is 2:1 against! It's the inverse of 1:3 FOR.

The odds for murder going UP were also 2:1 against (1:3 FOR)
The odds for murder remaining steady were also 2:1 against (1:3 FOR)

That's simply because of the fact that there are two competing hypotheses.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is precisely why all Skepdick's ludicrous squawking about n data points makes absolutely no difference. This for instance:

1 in 3 on a week-long observation is not the same as 1 in 3 over 500 years of observation.

There will only ever be three things that can happen to the murder rates.
Anyway, it's funny for a while and then yer start feeling sorry for the poor fucker.

[Skepdick]

Yes Skepdick, I do. Do you see the absurdity of pretending that you calculated the odds of murder rates decreasing being 2:1 against from 500 years worth of data?

It is 2:1 against! It's the inverse of 1:3 FOR.

The odds for murder going UP were also 2:1 against (1:3 FOR)
The odds for murder remaining steady were also 2:1 against (1:3 FOR)

That's simply because of the fact that there are two competing hypotheses.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is precisely why all Skepdick's ludicrous squawking about n data points makes absolutely no difference. This for instance:

1 in 3 on a week-long observation is not the same as 1 in 3 over 500 years of observation.

There will only ever be three things that can happen to the murder rates.
Anyway, it's funny for a while and then yer start feeling sorry for the poor fucker.

I have a conundrum on my hands.

Either you really are as ignorant as the argument you are making, or you are just being contrarian.

I'll exercise charity here, and assume you are being contrarian for one; and for another - I have absolutely no intention teaching you prior and posterior probabilities.

Imbecile. You don't even understand the difference between odds and probabilities

The 500 years of data is significant for calculating the confidence interval of the posterior probability (which I haven't given you - and you haven't bothered to work out)

Guess I am being too charitable.

There will only ever be three things that can happen to the murder rates.

The murder rate in Isle of Wright decreased in March 2020. That's 1 in 3 odds.
The global murder rate decreased in the last 500 years. That's also 1 in 3 odds.

If you insist that both scenarios signify the same evidentiary weight, and therefore justifies equivalent belief is to exemplify statistical and contextual blindness.

The odds will ALWAYS be 1:3. The probability of the outcome isn't 1:3.

That's why I insist that philosophers are idiots. It's factual claim, not an insult.