Fact is What We English Speakers said It Is?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Fact is What We English Speakers said It Is?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 10:21 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 9:08 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 5:16 am This is one of the dumbest philosophical argument to arrive at one's conclusion, i.e. it is true philosophical because we English Speakers said so it is.
You've cooked up a shit alternative meaning for FACT that doesn't draw a distinction between that and FICTION.

You fucked up.

You just aren't smart enough to understand yet.
You are the stupid and ignorant one.

Have you heard of 'half-truths'?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-truth
Regardless of the intention there is still an element of 50% truth in it.

On that basis there is no reason to stop at quarter-truth or 10% truths provided one justify it clearly.
If one make a point about something comprising 10 statements but only one statement is evidently true, that can be a 10% truth. It is appear ridiculous [atypical] but with proper explanation there is nothing wrong with it.
Do you think "half truth" is a statistical thing? It's an idiom you silly little man.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12231
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Fact is What We English Speakers said It Is?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 11:32 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 10:21 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 9:08 am

You've cooked up a shit alternative meaning for FACT that doesn't draw a distinction between that and FICTION.

You fucked up.

You just aren't smart enough to understand yet.
You are the stupid and ignorant one.

Have you heard of 'half-truths'?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-truth
Regardless of the intention there is still an element of 50% truth in it.

On that basis there is no reason to stop at quarter-truth or 10% truths provided one justify it clearly.
If one make a point about something comprising 10 statements but only one statement is evidently true, that can be a 10% truth. It is appear ridiculous [atypical] but with proper explanation there is nothing wrong with it.
Do you think "half truth" is a statistical thing? It's an idiom you silly little man.
  • A half-truth is a deceptive statement that includes some element of truth. The statement might be partly true, the statement may be totally true but only part of the whole truth, or it may use some deceptive element, such as improper punctuation, or double meaning, especially if the intent is to deceive, evade, blame or misrepresent the truth.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-truth
Focus on the argument!
To focus on the person will get you nowhere other than expose your subliminal acknowledgement of incompetence.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Fact is What We English Speakers said It Is?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 11:40 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 11:32 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 10:21 am
You are the stupid and ignorant one.

Have you heard of 'half-truths'?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-truth
Regardless of the intention there is still an element of 50% truth in it.

On that basis there is no reason to stop at quarter-truth or 10% truths provided one justify it clearly.
If one make a point about something comprising 10 statements but only one statement is evidently true, that can be a 10% truth. It is appear ridiculous [atypical] but with proper explanation there is nothing wrong with it.
Do you think "half truth" is a statistical thing? It's an idiom you silly little man.
  • A half-truth is a deceptive statement that includes some element of truth. The statement might be partly true, the statement may be totally true but only part of the whole truth, or it may use some deceptive element, such as improper punctuation, or double meaning, especially if the intent is to deceive, evade, blame or misrepresent the truth.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-truth
Focus on the argument!
To focus on the person will get you nowhere other than expose your subliminal acknowledgement of incompetence.
Lol. It's still an idiom. Half truth is not a quantitative judgment, it is qualitative all the way.

You're trying to cook up 7% truths here, it's not a measurable thing. Your numbers are still as fraudulent as they ever were, and as they are doomed to remain.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12231
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Fact is What We English Speakers said It Is?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 11:46 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 11:40 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 11:32 am
Do you think "half truth" is a statistical thing? It's an idiom you silly little man.
  • A half-truth is a deceptive statement that includes some element of truth. The statement might be partly true, the statement may be totally true but only part of the whole truth, or it may use some deceptive element, such as improper punctuation, or double meaning, especially if the intent is to deceive, evade, blame or misrepresent the truth.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-truth
Focus on the argument!
To focus on the person will get you nowhere other than expose your subliminal acknowledgement of incompetence.
Lol. It's still an idiom. Half truth is not a quantitative judgment, it is qualitative all the way.

You're trying to cook up 7% truths here, it's not a measurable thing. Your numbers are still as fraudulent as they ever were, and as they are doomed to remain.
I can say [based on my research on moral facts] the ten commandments is a half-truth.
Some of it are outright false, but a few has some degrees of moral truths [albeit derived intuitively] in it.

Note the general principle of improvement and advancement for humanity is,
all relevant variables must be measured or quantified, else improvements and advancements cannot be efficient.

My whole career is grounded on the above as one of the critical principle.

I dare say, the whole of humanity relied on such a principle but they are ignorant they are doing it on a subliminal basis. To advance and improvement on any field of knowledge humanity need to make such computation explicit.
Recently I have been directing my attention to biochemistry [involve tough computations], computational neuroscience, computational psychiatry, etc.
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=34739
These computational aspects will have an impact on computational morality in time.

Have you ever heard of 'Hedonistic Calculus'
The felicific calculus is an algorithm formulated by utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1747–1832) for calculating the degree or amount of pleasure that a specific action is likely to induce. Bentham, an ethical hedonist, believed the moral rightness or wrongness of an action to be a function of the amount of pleasure or pain that it produced. The felicific calculus could, in principle at least, determine the moral status of any considered act. The algorithm is also known as the utility calculus, the hedonistic calculus and the hedonic calculus.

To be included in this calculation are several variables (or vectors), which Bentham called "circumstances". These are:

Intensity: How strong is the pleasure?
Duration: How long will the pleasure last?
Certainty or uncertainty: How likely or unlikely is it that the pleasure will occur?
Propinquity or remoteness: How soon will the pleasure occur?
Fecundity: The probability that the action will be followed by sensations of the same kind.
Purity: The probability that it will not be followed by sensations of the opposite kind.
Extent: How many people will be affected?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felicific ... c_calculus
The above approach is a right approach in relying on quantification and measurement of the relevant variables.

The above failed only because of the weakness of its utilitarianism Moral FSK which is not grounded on solid fundamentals.

Are you also aware of 'Axiology'.
  • Axiology (from Greek ἀξία, axia: "value, worth"; and -λογία, -logia: "study of") is the philosophical study of value. It includes questions about the nature and classification of values and about what kinds of things have value. It is intimately connected with various other philosophical fields that crucially depend on the notion of value, like ethics, aesthetics or philosophy of religion.
As you will note, you are so ignorant of so much relevant knowledge. There are many more relevant one I have not mentioned. You are a gnat in terms of human knowledge.

What you are relying upon is merely crude knowledge without any solid groundings yet try to be that arrogant with so much ignorance.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Fact is What We English Speakers said It Is?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 5:20 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 11:46 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 11:40 am
  • A half-truth is a deceptive statement that includes some element of truth. The statement might be partly true, the statement may be totally true but only part of the whole truth, or it may use some deceptive element, such as improper punctuation, or double meaning, especially if the intent is to deceive, evade, blame or misrepresent the truth.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-truth
Focus on the argument!
To focus on the person will get you nowhere other than expose your subliminal acknowledgement of incompetence.
Lol. It's still an idiom. Half truth is not a quantitative judgment, it is qualitative all the way.

You're trying to cook up 7% truths here, it's not a measurable thing. Your numbers are still as fraudulent as they ever were, and as they are doomed to remain.
I can say [based on my research on moral facts] the ten commandments is a half-truth.
Some of it are outright false, but a few has some degrees of moral truths [albeit derived intuitively] in it.

Note the general principle of improvement and advancement for humanity is,
all relevant variables must be measured or quantified, else improvements and advancements cannot be efficient.

My whole career is grounded on the above as one of the critical principle.

I dare say, the whole of humanity relied on such a principle but they are ignorant they are doing it on a subliminal basis. To advance and improvement on any field of knowledge humanity need to make such computation explicit.
Recently I have been directing my attention to biochemistry [involve tough computations], computational neuroscience, computational psychiatry, etc.
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=34739
These computational aspects will have an impact on computational morality in time.
Listen, "half truth" is an idiom, you're hurting what credibility you ever had by persisting in treating it as a literal descriptor. You have to learn to walk back a mistake instead of doubling down on them. Otherwise you'll end up in another situation like that one where you tried to gaslight us that PI was "early Wittgenstein" because you just got it confused with the Tractatus and couldn't admit a simple error.

You were already struggling as a very poorly self-taught philosopher with no understanding of the groundwork for that discipline such as argument construction. Are you now a self-taught biologist with specialisations in both computational neuroscience and computational psychiatry? Is there no end to your pretension?

I'm unfamiliar with the tools of computational neuroscience, they must be quite fancy. Talk us through the datascience tooling that you employ in this endeavour. It must be a bit more than pandas and numpy I assume?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 5:20 am Have you ever heard of 'Hedonistic Calculus'
The felicific calculus is an algorithm formulated by utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1747–1832) for calculating the degree or amount of pleasure that a specific action is likely to induce. Bentham, an ethical hedonist, believed the moral rightness or wrongness of an action to be a function of the amount of pleasure or pain that it produced. The felicific calculus could, in principle at least, determine the moral status of any considered act. The algorithm is also known as the utility calculus, the hedonistic calculus and the hedonic calculus.

To be included in this calculation are several variables (or vectors), which Bentham called "circumstances". These are:

Intensity: How strong is the pleasure?
Duration: How long will the pleasure last?
Certainty or uncertainty: How likely or unlikely is it that the pleasure will occur?
Propinquity or remoteness: How soon will the pleasure occur?
Fecundity: The probability that the action will be followed by sensations of the same kind.
Purity: The probability that it will not be followed by sensations of the opposite kind.
Extent: How many people will be affected?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felicific ... c_calculus
The above approach is a right approach in relying on quantification and measurement of the relevant variables.

The above failed only because of the weakness of its utilitarianism Moral FSK which is not grounded on solid fundamentals.
It failed because the numbers were stupid.
It's an abortive attemempt to quantify an unquantifiable.
Which is what you do...
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 5:20 am Are you also aware of 'Axiology'.
  • Axiology (from Greek ἀξία, axia: "value, worth"; and -λογία, -logia: "study of") is the philosophical study of value. It includes questions about the nature and classification of values and about what kinds of things have value. It is intimately connected with various other philosophical fields that crucially depend on the notion of value, like ethics, aesthetics or philosophy of religion.
As you will note, you are so ignorant of so much relevant knowledge. There are many more relevant one I have not mentioned. You are a gnat in terms of human knowledge.

What you are relying upon is merely crude knowledge without any solid groundings yet try to be that arrogant with so much ignorance.
Yes I am painfully aware of Axiology because that moron Katz (Prof on this forum) was forever trying to shill for that bullshit pseudoscience on this forum.

Same issue, a ludicrous attempt to justify using made up numbers as quantites for unquantifiable experiences.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12231
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Fact is What We English Speakers said It Is?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 5:46 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 5:20 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 11:46 am
Lol. It's still an idiom. Half truth is not a quantitative judgment, it is qualitative all the way.

You're trying to cook up 7% truths here, it's not a measurable thing. Your numbers are still as fraudulent as they ever were, and as they are doomed to remain.
I can say [based on my research on moral facts] the ten commandments is a half-truth.
Some of it are outright false, but a few has some degrees of moral truths [albeit derived intuitively] in it.

Note the general principle of improvement and advancement for humanity is,
all relevant variables must be measured or quantified, else improvements and advancements cannot be efficient.

My whole career is grounded on the above as one of the critical principle.

I dare say, the whole of humanity relied on such a principle but they are ignorant they are doing it on a subliminal basis. To advance and improvement on any field of knowledge humanity need to make such computation explicit.
Recently I have been directing my attention to biochemistry [involve tough computations], computational neuroscience, computational psychiatry, etc.
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=34739
These computational aspects will have an impact on computational morality in time.
Listen, "half truth" is an idiom, you're hurting what credibility you ever had by persisting in treating it as a literal descriptor. You have to learn to walk back a mistake instead of doubling down on them. Otherwise you'll end up in another situation like that one where you tried to gaslight us that PI was "early Wittgenstein" because you just got it confused with the Tractatus and couldn't admit a simple error.

You were already struggling as a very poorly self-taught philosopher with no understanding of the groundwork for that discipline such as argument construction. Are you now a self-taught biologist with specialisations in both computational neuroscience and computational psychiatry? Is there no end to your pretension?

I'm unfamiliar with the tools of computational neuroscience, they must be quite fancy. Talk us through the datascience tooling that you employ in this endeavour. It must be a bit more than pandas and numpy I assume?
You are the ignorant one.
Google 'half truths' and you note it contain partial truths, albeit commonly related to intention to deceive, just like you are doing here.

When you are focused on logic, you are merely relying on half-truths because all the variables in logic has to be universals and not particulars with their specific realistic properties.

Pretension??
FYI I have just got a pass-certificate [with flying colors] from Harvard University [off campus] on the Principles of Biochemistry [after spending 8-12 hours full time]. If you are skeptical you can test me on my knowledge of biochemistry [Principles not the full extent of biochemistry].
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 5:20 am Have you ever heard of 'Hedonistic Calculus'
The felicific calculus is an algorithm formulated by utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1747–1832) for calculating the degree or amount of pleasure that a specific action is likely to induce. Bentham, an ethical hedonist, believed the moral rightness or wrongness of an action to be a function of the amount of pleasure or pain that it produced. The felicific calculus could, in principle at least, determine the moral status of any considered act. The algorithm is also known as the utility calculus, the hedonistic calculus and the hedonic calculus.

To be included in this calculation are several variables (or vectors), which Bentham called "circumstances". These are:

Intensity: How strong is the pleasure?
Duration: How long will the pleasure last?
Certainty or uncertainty: How likely or unlikely is it that the pleasure will occur?
Propinquity or remoteness: How soon will the pleasure occur?
Fecundity: The probability that the action will be followed by sensations of the same kind.
Purity: The probability that it will not be followed by sensations of the opposite kind.
Extent: How many people will be affected?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felicific ... c_calculus
The above approach is a right approach in relying on quantification and measurement of the relevant variables.

The above failed only because of the weakness of its utilitarianism Moral FSK which is not grounded on solid fundamentals.
It failed because the numbers were stupid.
It's an abortive attempt to quantify an unquantifiable.
Which is what you do...
The fundamentals of their FSK was stupid, not effective.
The approach in principle is not stupid.

The challenge is how to quantify the qualitative variables efficiently and turn them into useful knowledge that can benefit mankind.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 5:20 am Are you also aware of 'Axiology'.
  • Axiology (from Greek ἀξία, axia: "value, worth"; and -λογία, -logia: "study of") is the philosophical study of value. It includes questions about the nature and classification of values and about what kinds of things have value. It is intimately connected with various other philosophical fields that crucially depend on the notion of value, like ethics, aesthetics or philosophy of religion.
As you will note, you are so ignorant of so much relevant knowledge. There are many more relevant one I have not mentioned. You are a gnat in terms of human knowledge.

What you are relying upon is merely crude knowledge without any solid groundings yet try to be that arrogant with so much ignorance.
Yes I am painfully aware of Axiology because that moron Katz (Prof on this forum) was forever trying to shill for that bullshit pseudoscience on this forum.

Same issue, a ludicrous attempt to justify using made up numbers as quantites for unquantifiable experiences.
Yes, you are mere gnat in terms of the span of human knowledge and I don't believe Prof was a moron, but rather you're the moron.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Fact is What We English Speakers said It Is?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 8:09 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 5:46 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 5:20 am
I can say [based on my research on moral facts] the ten commandments is a half-truth.
Some of it are outright false, but a few has some degrees of moral truths [albeit derived intuitively] in it.

Note the general principle of improvement and advancement for humanity is,
all relevant variables must be measured or quantified, else improvements and advancements cannot be efficient.

My whole career is grounded on the above as one of the critical principle.

I dare say, the whole of humanity relied on such a principle but they are ignorant they are doing it on a subliminal basis. To advance and improvement on any field of knowledge humanity need to make such computation explicit.
Recently I have been directing my attention to biochemistry [involve tough computations], computational neuroscience, computational psychiatry, etc.
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=34739
These computational aspects will have an impact on computational morality in time.
Listen, "half truth" is an idiom, you're hurting what credibility you ever had by persisting in treating it as a literal descriptor. You have to learn to walk back a mistake instead of doubling down on them. Otherwise you'll end up in another situation like that one where you tried to gaslight us that PI was "early Wittgenstein" because you just got it confused with the Tractatus and couldn't admit a simple error.

You were already struggling as a very poorly self-taught philosopher with no understanding of the groundwork for that discipline such as argument construction. Are you now a self-taught biologist with specialisations in both computational neuroscience and computational psychiatry? Is there no end to your pretension?

I'm unfamiliar with the tools of computational neuroscience, they must be quite fancy. Talk us through the datascience tooling that you employ in this endeavour. It must be a bit more than pandas and numpy I assume?
You are the ignorant one.
Google 'half truths' and you note it contain partial truths, albeit commonly related to intention to deceive, just like you are doing here.

When you are focused on logic, you are merely relying on half-truths because all the variables in logic has to be universals and not particulars with their specific realistic properties.

Pretension??
FYI I have just got a pass-certificate [with flying colors] from Harvard University [off campus] on the Principles of Biochemistry [after spending 8-12 hours full time]. If you are skeptical you can test me on my knowledge of biochemistry [Principles not the full extent of biochemistry].
Are you perhaps describing a short introductory edX course in terms that are supposed to misleadingly suggest you are some sort of Harvard grad?

I mean, keep going, any learning you do via a sane method is displacing the stuff you do by fantasising about DNA in the bath, so it can only be an improvment.

So explain to me though, if you are just doing an edX course to learn about how enzymes catalyse, then I think it's reasonable to doubt that you are much of an authority on computational neuroscience, and perhaps you are again trying to indicate expertise you don't actually possess.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 8:09 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 5:20 am Have you ever heard of 'Hedonistic Calculus'



The above approach is a right approach in relying on quantification and measurement of the relevant variables.

The above failed only because of the weakness of its utilitarianism Moral FSK which is not grounded on solid fundamentals.
It failed because the numbers were stupid.
It's an abortive attempt to quantify an unquantifiable.
Which is what you do...
The fundamentals of their FSK was stupid, not effective.
The approach in principle is not stupid.

The challenge is how to quantify the qualitative variables efficiently and turn them into useful knowledge that can benefit mankind.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 5:20 am Are you also aware of 'Axiology'.
  • Axiology (from Greek ἀξία, axia: "value, worth"; and -λογία, -logia: "study of") is the philosophical study of value. It includes questions about the nature and classification of values and about what kinds of things have value. It is intimately connected with various other philosophical fields that crucially depend on the notion of value, like ethics, aesthetics or philosophy of religion.
As you will note, you are so ignorant of so much relevant knowledge. There are many more relevant one I have not mentioned. You are a gnat in terms of human knowledge.

What you are relying upon is merely crude knowledge without any solid groundings yet try to be that arrogant with so much ignorance.
Yes I am painfully aware of Axiology because that moron Katz (Prof on this forum) was forever trying to shill for that bullshit pseudoscience on this forum.

Same issue, a ludicrous attempt to justify using made up numbers as quantites for unquantifiable experiences.
Yes, you are mere gnat in terms of the span of human knowledge and I don't believe Prof was a moron, but rather you're the moron.
I caught Prof in the act of writing his own fake book reviews, and of plagiarising my words written on this forum without attribution and also with a far from subtle edit to completely misquote me in the same move. All that was for one of his Moral Philosophy books, which is exactly the sort of book where one would be best advised to avoid such misbehaviour. He is a complete fucking idiot, unless he's dead, in which case was a complete fucking idiot.

All this is beside the point. Half truth doesn't provide a MEASUREMENT oh how much truth a statement contains, it is an IDIOM to indicate that a statement has misleading aspects. Such as your misleading half-truth about being Harvard educated above. You didn't lie, you just omitted facts that make the boast somewhat less impressive if included.

That's not to say a single word was untrue, nor is it to say that a proportion greater than 49% but less than 51% was lies. That would be completely FALSE PRECISION which is of course the fallacy you commit every single day (well, that and bandwagons) when you pretend you can attach numbers to uncountable objects.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_precision
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12231
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Fact is What We English Speakers said It Is?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 8:33 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 8:09 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 5:46 am
Listen, "half truth" is an idiom, you're hurting what credibility you ever had by persisting in treating it as a literal descriptor. You have to learn to walk back a mistake instead of doubling down on them. Otherwise you'll end up in another situation like that one where you tried to gaslight us that PI was "early Wittgenstein" because you just got it confused with the Tractatus and couldn't admit a simple error.

You were already struggling as a very poorly self-taught philosopher with no understanding of the groundwork for that discipline such as argument construction. Are you now a self-taught biologist with specialisations in both computational neuroscience and computational psychiatry? Is there no end to your pretension?

I'm unfamiliar with the tools of computational neuroscience, they must be quite fancy. Talk us through the datascience tooling that you employ in this endeavour. It must be a bit more than pandas and numpy I assume?
You are the ignorant one.
Google 'half truths' and you note it contain partial truths, albeit commonly related to intention to deceive, just like you are doing here.

When you are focused on logic, you are merely relying on half-truths because all the variables in logic has to be universals and not particulars with their specific realistic properties.

Pretension??
FYI I have just got a pass-certificate [with flying colors] from Harvard University [off campus] on the Principles of Biochemistry [after spending 8-12 hours full time]. If you are skeptical you can test me on my knowledge of biochemistry [Principles not the full extent of biochemistry].
Are you perhaps describing a short introductory edX course in terms that are supposed to misleadingly suggest you are some sort of Harvard grad?

I mean, keep going, any learning you do via a sane method is displacing the stuff you do by fantasising about DNA in the bath, so it can only be an improvment.

So explain to me though, if you are just doing an edX course to learn about how enzymes catalyse, then I think it's reasonable to doubt that you are much of an authority on computational neuroscience, and perhaps you are again trying to indicate expertise you don't actually possess.
Strawman again, I never claim as if I am a full Harvard Grad. But it is mentioned the course is equivalent in part to what the normal Harvard student would take.
Note I mentioned " off campus" "Principles not the full extent of biochemistry" which imply I have the basic knowledge only and not an authority on the subject. As usual you ignored that with your half-truths.

I am attempting to try the computational neuroscience course which is separate from the biochemistry course, but only to acquire basic knowledge and not to be of any authority on it. In such a course, one is asked what is one's purpose in taking the course and I often stipulate my purpose is for personal knowledge not to be a n authority or leverage it for my career.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 8:09 am
It failed because the numbers were stupid.
It's an abortive attempt to quantify an unquantifiable.
Which is what you do...
The fundamentals of their FSK was stupid, not effective.
The approach in principle is not stupid.

The challenge is how to quantify the qualitative variables efficiently and turn them into useful knowledge that can benefit mankind.
Yes I am painfully aware of Axiology because that moron Katz (Prof on this forum) was forever trying to shill for that bullshit pseudoscience on this forum.

Same issue, a ludicrous attempt to justify using made up numbers as quantites for unquantifiable experiences.
Yes, you are mere gnat in terms of the span of human knowledge and I don't believe Prof was a moron, but rather you're the moron.
I caught Prof in the act of writing his own fake book reviews, and of plagiarising my words written on this forum without attribution and also with a far from subtle edit to completely misquote me in the same move. All that was for one of his Moral Philosophy books, which is exactly the sort of book where one would be best advised to avoid such misbehaviour. He is a complete fucking idiot, unless he's dead, in which case was a complete fucking idiot.

All this is beside the point. Half truth doesn't provide a MEASUREMENT oh how much truth a statement contains, it is an IDIOM to indicate that a statement has misleading aspects. Such as your misleading half-truth about being Harvard educated above. You didn't lie, you just omitted facts that make the boast somewhat less impressive if included.

That's not to say a single word was untrue, nor is it to say that a proportion greater than 49% but less than 51% was lies. That would be completely FALSE PRECISION which is of course the fallacy you commit every single day (well, that and bandwagons) when you pretend you can attach numbers to uncountable objects.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_precision
Yes, Prof had his limitations but overall is not a stupid moron.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Sat May 07, 2022 8:53 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Fact is What We English Speakers said It Is?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 5:20 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 11:46 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 11:40 am
  • A half-truth is a deceptive statement that includes some element of truth. The statement might be partly true, the statement may be totally true but only part of the whole truth, or it may use some deceptive element, such as improper punctuation, or double meaning, especially if the intent is to deceive, evade, blame or misrepresent the truth.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-truth
Focus on the argument!
To focus on the person will get you nowhere other than expose your subliminal acknowledgement of incompetence.
Lol. It's still an idiom. Half truth is not a quantitative judgment, it is qualitative all the way.

You're trying to cook up 7% truths here, it's not a measurable thing. Your numbers are still as fraudulent as they ever were, and as they are doomed to remain.
I can say [based on my research on moral facts] the ten commandments is a half-truth.
Some of it are outright false, but a few has some degrees of moral truths [albeit derived intuitively] in it.

Note the general principle of improvement and advancement for humanity is,
all relevant variables must be measured or quantified, else improvements and advancements cannot be efficient.

My whole career is grounded on the above as one of the critical principle.

I dare say, the whole of humanity relied on such a principle but they are ignorant they are doing it on a subliminal basis. To advance and improvement on any field of knowledge humanity need to make such computation explicit.
Recently I have been directing my attention to biochemistry [involve tough computations], computational neuroscience, computational psychiatry, etc.
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=34739
These computational aspects will have an impact on computational morality in time.
All of that was (now) in your ADMITTEDLY INEXPERT OPINION
You don't actually do tough computations, and I don't think you do "computational" anything at all.
But you weren't trying to mislead anyone that you do computational things were you?
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Fact is What We English Speakers said It Is?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 8:43 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 8:33 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 8:09 am
You are the ignorant one.
Google 'half truths' and you note it contain partial truths, albeit commonly related to intention to deceive, just like you are doing here.

When you are focused on logic, you are merely relying on half-truths because all the variables in logic has to be universals and not particulars with their specific realistic properties.

Pretension??
FYI I have just got a pass-certificate [with flying colors] from Harvard University [off campus] on the Principles of Biochemistry [after spending 8-12 hours full time]. If you are skeptical you can test me on my knowledge of biochemistry [Principles not the full extent of biochemistry].
Are you perhaps describing a short introductory edX course in terms that are supposed to misleadingly suggest you are some sort of Harvard grad?

I mean, keep going, any learning you do via a sane method is displacing the stuff you do by fantasising about DNA in the bath, so it can only be an improvment.

So explain to me though, if you are just doing an edX course to learn about how enzymes catalyse, then I think it's reasonable to doubt that you are much of an authority on computational neuroscience, and perhaps you are again trying to indicate expertise you don't actually possess.
Strawman again, I never claim as if I am a full Harvard Grad.
Note I mentioned " off campus" "Principles not the full extent of biochemistry" which imply I have the basic knowledge only and not an authority on the subject. As usual you ignored that with your half-truths.

I am attempting to try the computational neuroscience, but only to acquire basic knowledge and not to be of any authority on it. In such a course, one is asked what is one's purpose in taking the course and I often stipulate my purpose is for personal knowledge not to be a n authority or leverage it for my career.
Did you get that certificate from Harvard or from edX?
Who actually issued it?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12231
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Fact is What We English Speakers said It Is?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 8:52 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 8:43 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 8:33 am
Are you perhaps describing a short introductory edX course in terms that are supposed to misleadingly suggest you are some sort of Harvard grad?

I mean, keep going, any learning you do via a sane method is displacing the stuff you do by fantasising about DNA in the bath, so it can only be an improvment.

So explain to me though, if you are just doing an edX course to learn about how enzymes catalyse, then I think it's reasonable to doubt that you are much of an authority on computational neuroscience, and perhaps you are again trying to indicate expertise you don't actually possess.
Strawman again, I never claim as if I am a full Harvard Grad.
Note I mentioned " off campus" "Principles not the full extent of biochemistry" which imply I have the basic knowledge only and not an authority on the subject. As usual you ignored that with your half-truths.

I am attempting to try the computational neuroscience, but only to acquire basic knowledge and not to be of any authority on it. In such a course, one is asked what is one's purpose in taking the course and I often stipulate my purpose is for personal knowledge not to be a n authority or leverage it for my career.
Did you get that certificate from Harvard or from edX?
Who actually issued it?
edX is merely the organizer.
The certificate is signed by the Harvard professor and lecturer.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Fact is What We English Speakers said It Is?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

My bad for giving you two to work with. Let's do the more interesting one again.
Although you should totally show us that Harvard cert that doesn't really mention edX.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 5:20 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 11:46 am
Lol. It's still an idiom. Half truth is not a quantitative judgment, it is qualitative all the way.

You're trying to cook up 7% truths here, it's not a measurable thing. Your numbers are still as fraudulent as they ever were, and as they are doomed to remain.
I can say [based on my research on moral facts] the ten commandments is a half-truth.
Some of it are outright false, but a few has some degrees of moral truths [albeit derived intuitively] in it.

Note the general principle of improvement and advancement for humanity is,
all relevant variables must be measured or quantified, else improvements and advancements cannot be efficient.

My whole career is grounded on the above as one of the critical principle.

I dare say, the whole of humanity relied on such a principle but they are ignorant they are doing it on a subliminal basis. To advance and improvement on any field of knowledge humanity need to make such computation explicit.
Recently I have been directing my attention to biochemistry [involve tough computations], computational neuroscience, computational psychiatry, etc.
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=34739
These computational aspects will have an impact on computational morality in time.
All of that was (now) in your ADMITTEDLY INEXPERT OPINION
You don't actually do tough computations, and I don't think you do "computational" anything at all.
But you weren't trying to mislead anyone that you do computational things were you?
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Fact is What We English Speakers said It Is?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 8:43 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 8:33 am That's not to say a single word was untrue, nor is it to say that a proportion greater than 49% but less than 51% was lies. That would be completely FALSE PRECISION which is of course the fallacy you commit every single day (well, that and bandwagons) when you pretend you can attach numbers to uncountable objects.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_precision
Yes, Prof had his limitations but overall is not a stupid moron.
You should be taking more of an interest in the fallacy of false precision by the way. You claim to have pretensions to write a book and become an important philosophy guy. Aside from your issues with basic entailment and self-contradictory fact claims, you won't ever find a publisher if you haven't done something about the glaringly untruthful non-fact status of every number you use.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12231
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Fact is What We English Speakers said It Is?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 9:01 am My bad for giving you two to work with. Let's do the more interesting one again.
Although you should totally show us that Harvard cert that doesn't really mention edX.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 5:20 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 11:46 am
Lol. It's still an idiom. Half truth is not a quantitative judgment, it is qualitative all the way.

You're trying to cook up 7% truths here, it's not a measurable thing. Your numbers are still as fraudulent as they ever were, and as they are doomed to remain.
I can say [based on my research on moral facts] the ten commandments is a half-truth.
Some of it are outright false, but a few has some degrees of moral truths [albeit derived intuitively] in it.

Note the general principle of improvement and advancement for humanity is,
all relevant variables must be measured or quantified, else improvements and advancements cannot be efficient.

My whole career is grounded on the above as one of the critical principle.

I dare say, the whole of humanity relied on such a principle but they are ignorant they are doing it on a subliminal basis. To advance and improvement on any field of knowledge humanity need to make such computation explicit.
Recently I have been directing my attention to biochemistry [involve tough computations], computational neuroscience, computational psychiatry, etc.
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=34739
These computational aspects will have an impact on computational morality in time.
All of that was (now) in your ADMITTEDLY INEXPERT OPINION
You don't actually do tough computations, and I don't think you do "computational" anything at all.
But you weren't trying to mislead anyone that you do computational things were you?
Note I had intention to move into more sophisticated computational aspects of neuroscience and other computational subjects.
Re Morality, note I qualify 'in time' thus in the future, humanity [not me] will introduce "computational" aspects into morality.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Fact is What We English Speakers said It Is?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 9:19 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 9:01 am My bad for giving you two to work with. Let's do the more interesting one again.
Although you should totally show us that Harvard cert that doesn't really mention edX.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 5:20 am
I can say [based on my research on moral facts] the ten commandments is a half-truth.
Some of it are outright false, but a few has some degrees of moral truths [albeit derived intuitively] in it.

Note the general principle of improvement and advancement for humanity is,
all relevant variables must be measured or quantified, else improvements and advancements cannot be efficient.

My whole career is grounded on the above as one of the critical principle.

I dare say, the whole of humanity relied on such a principle but they are ignorant they are doing it on a subliminal basis. To advance and improvement on any field of knowledge humanity need to make such computation explicit.
Recently I have been directing my attention to biochemistry [involve tough computations], computational neuroscience, computational psychiatry, etc.
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=34739
These computational aspects will have an impact on computational morality in time.
All of that was (now) in your ADMITTEDLY INEXPERT OPINION
You don't actually do tough computations, and I don't think you do "computational" anything at all.
But you weren't trying to mislead anyone that you do computational things were you?
Note I had intention to move into more sophisticated computational aspects of neuroscience and other computational subjects.
Re Morality, note I qualify 'in time' thus in the future, humanity [not me] will introduce "computational" aspects into morality.
But you have no expertise to substantiate those opinions.
And you don't know shit about computational neuroscience or computational psychiatry do you?
You just referenced them in hopes of looking smart.

Half truths.
Post Reply