Vestibule Architect's lazy false precision problem

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: 6266
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Vestibule Architect's lazy false precision problem

Post by FlashDangerpants »

I notice that whenever he is required to explain how exactly he arrives at some number for the goodnesses and badnesses and credibilities that he claims to attach with scientific precisiosn to things he does or doesn't like... VA always drops that thread and opens a new one.

So let's just have an easy to reference boilerplate for why everything that Vaginal Aquafresh is trying to accomplish is completely doomed to pitiful failure.

It doesn't even need to be a very long thread with a whole lot of explanatories and links to exciting sources. Vertical Aquaduct simply makes it his daily mission to use the Fallacy of False Precision at least once per.

The numbers that VA assigns to things are opinions expressed as numbers. Sometimes he likes to get them from a poll of some sort. Other times he likes to just assign them on the fly. But what he wants you to think is that they are real numbers that measure and quantify something that is not just his opinion.

So he makes them out of 100 because that looks more like a scale of measurement than the less deceitful "2 out of 5, wouldn't recommend" does. Which is actually quite pathetic when you think about how this fallacy is supposed to work. False precision is supposed to make thrown together numbers look valid by making them complex. VA works in integers divisible by 10 with nothing left over. It's like he wants to pull one over on you but he's too lazy to bother with a decimal point. This is Lazy False Precision, it's the work of a man who knows his labours are shit, but who ran out of ideas years ago and won't be rethinking his strategy any time soon.

If I am wrong, then it's easy to show it, you just have to show us how to do the calculation.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Vestibule Architect's lazy false precision problem

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Richard Dawkins claim he is a 6/7 atheist.
The nub of Dawkins’s consciousness-raising message is that to be an atheist is a “brave and splendid” aspiration.
Belief in God is not only a delusion, he argues, but a “pernicious” one.

On a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is certitude that God exists and 7 is certitude that God does not exist, Dawkins rates himself a 6: “I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/22/book ... olt.t.html#:
The OP should berates Dawkins as stupid for making such a claim?

Being rational I have no problem understanding 'crude' rating and where he stand on atheism.
As a scientist, Dawkins cannot bank on 100% certainty and since his focus is on the need for empirical evidence to support the evidence for God, he has to resign to give such a rating.
I believe on a personal basis, Dawkins would not give a fuck with God existence and that it is impossible for God to exists as real, but he cannot do that professional and besides he don't have a rational argument for it.

Giving ratings on any issue should not be a problem if we are mindful of the limitations and give it a greater margin of error.

For example, if on a continuum of evil I rate genocide at 90/100 and petty thefts at 5/100 surely we can fill in the middle with rough estimates of other evil acts depending on the severity of evilness.

Pantflasher is a gnat in term of such knowledge and make noises for the sake of making noises.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6266
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Vestibule Architect's lazy false precision problem

Post by FlashDangerpants »

So here's an ideal example that shows why there is a severe problem.
In one of your responses, Genocide is a 95/100 crime.
In another killing a single baby outranks that at 99/100
Pissing on a baby is not immoral for some reason, but you are willing to make up a 0.1/100 for the sake of conveninence.

And you compare this idiot shit to science.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Mar 27, 2021 6:53 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Mar 27, 2021 6:31 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Mar 27, 2021 5:17 am
If the main purpose of is baptism [generally with good intention] of the baby, there is no elements of morality in that case. Note there are some people who drink human urine and camel urine for health reasons.

But if there is any intention to kill or torture the baby with glee, then that is an issue of morality, i.e. against the moral standard, 'no human ought to kill humans'.
If there are no intention to kill but if the babies died [in a way killed] from those acts frequently, then there will be some degree moral issue.
The question wasn't that difficult. Let's try again.

Two men walk into a church where a baptism is about to happen. The first one whips out his penis in front of the whole congregation and pisses in the font, then he has the priest baptise the baby in the piss water. The second man waits politely until the baby has been baptised, then whips out his penis and pisses in the font.

Give us the true and actual number of units of evil that the first man has committed. Now tell us how many fewer evils the second man committed. Explain how this calculation was made.
The above acts are not related to morality-proper.
If any and with an agreed FSK on such rating, it would be 1/100 of evilness relative to a typical genocide at 95/100.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 8:04 am Pissing on a baby [your previous 'pissing into a baptismal bowl'] is not directly related to morality.
But if you insist I can rate it at 0.1/100 degree of evilness to 90/100 evilness for killing a baby.
Surely normal persons can understand the relative differences in the number and will response to them emotionally with similar sense of disgust.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6266
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Vestibule Architect's lazy false precision problem

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 11:17 am Richard Dawkins claim he is a 6/7 atheist.
The nub of Dawkins’s consciousness-raising message is that to be an atheist is a “brave and splendid” aspiration.
Belief in God is not only a delusion, he argues, but a “pernicious” one.

On a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is certitude that God exists and 7 is certitude that God does not exist, Dawkins rates himself a 6: “I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/22/book ... olt.t.html#:
The OP should berates Dawkins as stupid for making such a claim?
That claim is equivalent to the one I already mention 2 stars out of 5. It's not a measurement, it's colloquial.
The concerning thing here is that you are having serious mental difficulties understanding that.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 11:17 am Being rational I have no problem understanding 'crude' rating and where he stand on atheism.
As a scientist, Dawkins cannot bank on 100% certainty and since his focus is on the need for empirical evidence to support the evidence for God, he has to resign to give such a rating.
I believe on a personal basis, Dawkins would not give a fuck with God existence and that it is impossible for God to exists as real, but he cannot do that professional and besides he don't have a rational argument for it.

Giving ratings on any issue should not be a problem if we are mindful of the limitations and give it a greater margin of error.

For example, if on a continuum of evil I rate genocide at 90/100 and petty thefts at 5/100 surely we can fill in the middle with rough estimates of other evil acts depending on the severity of evilness.

Pantflasher is a gnat in term of such knowledge and make noises for the sake of making noises.
The suggestion of a margin of error is the exact problem with all of your work.

You are commiting false precision fallacy. You don't have anything to measure with precision, there is no target of measurement that has any objective scale to be measured against.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Vestibule Architect's lazy false precision problem

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 11:24 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 11:17 am Richard Dawkins claim he is a 6/7 atheist.
The nub of Dawkins’s consciousness-raising message is that to be an atheist is a “brave and splendid” aspiration.
Belief in God is not only a delusion, he argues, but a “pernicious” one.

On a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is certitude that God exists and 7 is certitude that God does not exist, Dawkins rates himself a 6: “I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/22/book ... olt.t.html#:
The OP should berates Dawkins as stupid for making such a claim?
That claim is equivalent to the one I already mention 2 stars out of 5. It's not a measurement, it's colloquial.
The concerning thing here is that you are having serious mental difficulties understanding that.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 11:17 am Being rational I have no problem understanding 'crude' rating and where he stand on atheism.
As a scientist, Dawkins cannot bank on 100% certainty and since his focus is on the need for empirical evidence to support the evidence for God, he has to resign to give such a rating.
I believe on a personal basis, Dawkins would not give a fuck with God existence and that it is impossible for God to exists as real, but he cannot do that professional and besides he don't have a rational argument for it.

Giving ratings on any issue should not be a problem if we are mindful of the limitations and give it a greater margin of error.

For example, if on a continuum of evil I rate genocide at 90/100 and petty thefts at 5/100 surely we can fill in the middle with rough estimates of other evil acts depending on the severity of evilness.

Pantflasher is a gnat in term of such knowledge and make noises for the sake of making noises.
The suggestion of a margin of error is the exact problem with all of your work.

You are commiting false precision fallacy. You don't have anything to measure with precision, there is no target of measurement that has any objective scale to be measured against.
What is critical is whether the model can be translated to produce results.
I believe given, even with the rough estimates, it will produce results, i.e. we have to direct more attention to deal with genocides to close the moral gap of a "20/80" pareto approach.

Btw, one of my specialty is problem solving techniques and I have applied the above approaches to resolve many problems with positive results.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6266
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Vestibule Architect's lazy false precision problem

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 11:33 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 11:24 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 11:17 am Richard Dawkins claim he is a 6/7 atheist.



The OP should berates Dawkins as stupid for making such a claim?
That claim is equivalent to the one I already mention 2 stars out of 5. It's not a measurement, it's colloquial.
The concerning thing here is that you are having serious mental difficulties understanding that.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 11:17 am Being rational I have no problem understanding 'crude' rating and where he stand on atheism.
As a scientist, Dawkins cannot bank on 100% certainty and since his focus is on the need for empirical evidence to support the evidence for God, he has to resign to give such a rating.
I believe on a personal basis, Dawkins would not give a fuck with God existence and that it is impossible for God to exists as real, but he cannot do that professional and besides he don't have a rational argument for it.

Giving ratings on any issue should not be a problem if we are mindful of the limitations and give it a greater margin of error.

For example, if on a continuum of evil I rate genocide at 90/100 and petty thefts at 5/100 surely we can fill in the middle with rough estimates of other evil acts depending on the severity of evilness.

Pantflasher is a gnat in term of such knowledge and make noises for the sake of making noises.
The suggestion of a margin of error is the exact problem with all of your work.

You are commiting false precision fallacy. You don't have anything to measure with precision, there is no target of measurement that has any objective scale to be measured against.
What is critical is whether the model can be translated to produce results.
I believe given, even with the rough estimates, it will produce results, i.e. we have to direct more attention to deal with genocides to close the moral gap of a "20/80" pareto approach.

Btw, one of my specialty is problem solving techniques and I have applied the above approaches to resolve many problems with positive results.
How can you have a margin for error when "rough estimates" which are actually nothing but numbers given as names for an opinion, are all you have to work with?

A margin of error entails as necessity that there is some correct number. But yours are manufactured to fit your beliefs. That's hy Genocide is 95% and a single baby is 99% bad. Because you MAKE UP BULLSHIT NUMBERS AS YOU GO.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6266
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Vestibule Architect's lazy false precision problem

Post by FlashDangerpants »

And when you let this stuff go too far, you end up with a bullshit soup like the below
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 8:47 am On a FSK basis, there are astrological facts [as defined], but I would rate them with no credibility at all, but if I am driven by science no absolute certainty, then I can rate it as a 0.00001/100 fact which is as good as nonsense. [just like Dawkins having to rate himself as a 6/7 [85.71%] atheist since he as a scientist cannot claim absolute 100% certainty]
Where tyou simultaneously commit to the paradox that is true that everybody born between dates in any given calendar year share personality traits and so on, but also it is true that Astrolgy is fraudulent bullshit. This clearly asserts that a true truth is untrue.

But in a low quality attempt to get out of it, you end up inserting numbers with self-evidently fake precisions like "0.00001/100".

It doesn't fix the problem. Saying you as a person only tyhink there is 3.00934% truth in X is logically contrary to "it is true to say that X is false".
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Vestibule Architect's lazy false precision problem

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 11:01 am I notice that whenever he is required to explain how exactly he arrives at some number for the goodnesses and badnesses and credibilities that he claims to attach with scientific precisiosn to things he does or doesn't like... VA always drops that thread and opens a new one.

So let's just have an easy to reference boilerplate for why everything that Vaginal Aquafresh is trying to accomplish is completely doomed to pitiful failure.

It doesn't even need to be a very long thread with a whole lot of explanatories and links to exciting sources. Vertical Aquaduct simply makes it his daily mission to use the Fallacy of False Precision at least once per.

The numbers that VA assigns to things are opinions expressed as numbers. Sometimes he likes to get them from a poll of some sort. Other times he likes to just assign them on the fly. But what he wants you to think is that they are real numbers that measure and quantify something that is not just his opinion.

So he makes them out of 100 because that looks more like a scale of measurement than the less deceitful "2 out of 5, wouldn't recommend" does. Which is actually quite pathetic when you think about how this fallacy is supposed to work. False precision is supposed to make thrown together numbers look valid by making them complex. VA works in integers divisible by 10 with nothing left over. It's like he wants to pull one over on you but he's too lazy to bother with a decimal point. This is Lazy False Precision, it's the work of a man who knows his labours are shit, but who ran out of ideas years ago and won't be rethinking his strategy any time soon.
Why does that bother you when VA does it, but it doesn't bother you when you do it?

Is murder wrong?

Score it a 1 if you answer "Yes".
Score it a 0 if you answer "No"

Or... to use a more relevant example. You recently claimed that VA's arguments are "mistaken". One way to represent those as a ranking is 1 if an argument is mistaken and 0 if it's not mistaken. Or more conventionally - true and false.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 11:01 am If I am wrong, then it's easy to show it, you just have to show us how to do the calculation.
If you are "right" then it's easy to show also!

Given the question (equivalent to a logical predicate): "VA is wrong" is either true or false. A 1 or a 0.

Show us how to do the calculation which arrives at 1/true.

Quantising - it's a verb and you don't understand it.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Vestibule Architect's lazy false precision problem

Post by Peter Holmes »

The word quantising is a gerund - a verbal noun. Or it's a participle used adjectivally. It's not a finite verb.

But there's me, being all normative again. Quantising could just as well be a green orange I pluck out of my arse. Who's to say?
Last edited by Peter Holmes on Wed May 11, 2022 11:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Vestibule Architect's lazy false precision problem

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 10:58 am The word quantising is a gerund - a verbal noun. Or it's a participle used adjectivally. It's not a finite verb.
For somebody who pretends to care about the non-linguistic nature of facts you sure get bogged down in grammar a lot.

Quantising describes an observable/empirical phenomenon.
Quantization ...is the prosess of mapping input values to output values in smaller set, often with a finite number of elements.
FlashDapgerpants is mapping VA's numerous arguments (input values) to a smaller, finite, countable set - right or wrong. True or false. Valid or invalid. etc. etc. etc.

In an FSK/framework/context/mindset which is capable of recognizing the above phenomenon then it trivially follows that:

FlashDapgerpants is quantising. That's a fact.
VA is quantising. That's a fact.
FlashDangerpants demands to see VA's calculations while refusing to show his own. That's also a fact.
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 10:58 am But there's me, being all normative again. Quantising could just as well be a green orange I pluck out of my arse. Who's to say?
Well, what do you know. There may still be hope even for a dumb philosopher such as yourself.

For all we know you are pluckin them out of yoru arse. We don't know - you won't show us your calculations.
Atla
Posts: 6674
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Vestibule Architect's lazy false precision problem

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 11:33 am Btw, one of my specialty is problem solving techniques and I have applied the above approaches to resolve many problems with positive results.
That's excellent news, seeds's list can be updated again
seeds wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 8:23 pm You've just reminded me that it's time to update your list of self-aggrandizing statements about your alleged abilities and achievements:
  • 1. Note I have martial arts background.

    2. Note I have done extensive research into the spirituality of human nature.

    3. I am inclined with one-upping knowledge.

    4. My struggle to be understood is on a par with the likes of Copernicus, Galileo, Socrates, Einstein, and Kant.

    5. I am an expert on Islam.

    6. I am an expert on Buddhism.

    7. I am an expert on Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.

    8. I am an expert on "What is Philosophy."

    10. I've done extensive research into "altered states of consciousness" leaving no stones unturned.

    11. Soon to be announced...
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Vestibule Architect's lazy false precision problem

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Atla wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 9:07 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 11:33 am Btw, one of my specialty is problem solving techniques and I have applied the above approaches to resolve many problems with positive results.
That's excellent news, seeds's list can be updated again
seeds wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 8:23 pm You've just reminded me that it's time to update your list of self-aggrandizing statements about your alleged abilities and achievements:
  • 1. Note I have martial arts background.

    2. Note I have done extensive research into the spirituality of human nature.

    3. I am inclined with one-upping knowledge.

    4. My struggle to be understood is on a par with the likes of Copernicus, Galileo, Socrates, Einstein, and Kant.

    5. I am an expert on Islam.

    6. I am an expert on Buddhism.

    7. I am an expert on Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.

    8. I am an expert on "What is Philosophy."

    10. I've done extensive research into "altered states of consciousness" leaving no stones unturned.

    11. Soon to be announced...
I did not compile the above, it was Seed's doing. No 4 is a strawman.

I have to counter Pantflasher's [a fucktard] insistence condemnation of quantification of the qualitative.
I have a Masters Degree with emphasis on Problem Solving Techniques; one cannot solve and improve on problems without first quantifying the relevant qualitative variables involved.

Since you are on to it, note;

I have passed a course in Principles of Biochemistry from Harvard University off- campus Hardvard-X with very good grades.

I have done extensive research into Ethics and Morality.

Soon, I will be taking courses [where time permit] in Principles [only not the full course] of Computational Neurosciences and other computational subjects.
I will be learning programming and coding in Python and other necessary computer programing.

The above declarations and claims are very common and necessary in presenting one's CVs, e.g. in Linkedin,
https://www.linkedin.com/ etc.
Those in the academic field will often present their credentials in various organizations and papers.

I would say those who hide their credentials are stupid and not effective, i.e. not enabling the other parties to be familiar with their background, thus causing the usual of talking pass each other and time wasting.
In addition, if one do not show one's credential, some ignorant arse will try to be condescending to one as if one is a kindergarten kid in a subject one is well-verse with.

What is critical here is not self-aggrandizing statements but whether one can walk the talk and justify what is claimed.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Thu May 12, 2022 5:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Vestibule Architect's lazy false precision problem

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 3:47 am
Atla wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 9:07 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 11:33 am Btw, one of my specialty is problem solving techniques and I have applied the above approaches to resolve many problems with positive results.
That's excellent news, seeds's list can be updated again
seeds wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 8:23 pm You've just reminded me that it's time to update your list of self-aggrandizing statements about your alleged abilities and achievements:
I did not compile the above, it was Seed's doing. No 4 is a strawman.

I have to counter Pantflasher's [a fucktard] insistence condemnation of quantification of the qualitative.
I have a Masters Degree with emphasis on Problem Solving Techniques; one cannot solve and improve on problems without first quantifying the relevant qualitative variables involved.

Since you are on to it, note;

I have passed a course in Principles of Biochemistry from Harvard University of campus Hardvard-X with very good grades.

I have done extensive research into Ethics and Morality.

Soon, I will be taking courses [where time permit] in Principles [only not the full course] of Computational Neurosciences and other computational subjects.
I will be learning programming and coding in Python and other necessary computer programing.

The above declarations and claims are very common and necessary in presenting one's CVs, e.g. in Linkedin,
https://www.linkedin.com/ etc.
Those in the academic field will often present their credentials in various organizations and papers.

I would say those who hide their credentials are stupid and not effective, i.e. not enabling the other parties to be familiar with their background, thus causing the usual of talking pass each other and time wasting.
In addition, if one do not show one's credential, some ignorant arse will try to be condescending to one as if one is a kindergarten kid in a subject one is well-verse with.

What is critical here is not self-aggrandizing statements but whether one can walk the talk and justify what is claimed.
Agreed. The intelligence, qualifications, experience and character of someone making an argument have absolutely no bearing on the validity and soundness of the argument.

A factual premise can't entail a moral conclusion, because a conclusion can't introduce information not present in the premise. If it does, the argument is a non sequitur and possibly question-begging fallacy. VA's argument for objective morality from actual or putative facts about human nature commits one or both of these fallacies.

The words ought and should have moral and non-moral (instrumental) uses that are completely different. To use them in both ways in an argument, without acknowledgement, is to commit an equivocation fallacy. VA's 'oughtness to do/not to do' argument from human nature to objective morality commits this fallacy.
Atla
Posts: 6674
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Vestibule Architect's lazy false precision problem

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 3:47 am
Atla wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 9:07 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 11:33 am Btw, one of my specialty is problem solving techniques and I have applied the above approaches to resolve many problems with positive results.
That's excellent news, seeds's list can be updated again
seeds wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 8:23 pm You've just reminded me that it's time to update your list of self-aggrandizing statements about your alleged abilities and achievements:
I did not compile the above, it was Seed's doing. No 4 is a strawman.

I have to counter Pantflasher's [a fucktard] insistence condemnation of quantification of the qualitative.
I have a Masters Degree with emphasis on Problem Solving Techniques; one cannot solve and improve on problems without first quantifying the relevant qualitative variables involved.

Since you are on to it, note;

I have passed a course in Principles of Biochemistry from Harvard University of campus Hardvard-X with very good grades.

I have done extensive research into Ethics and Morality.

Soon, I will be taking courses [where time permit] in Principles [only not the full course] of Computational Neurosciences and other computational subjects.
I will be learning programming and coding in Python and other necessary computer programing.

The above declarations and claims are very common and necessary in presenting one's CVs, e.g. in Linkedin,
https://www.linkedin.com/ etc.
Those in the academic field will often present their credentials in various organizations and papers.

I would say those who hide their credentials are stupid and not effective, i.e. not enabling the other parties to be familiar with their background, thus causing the usual of talking pass each other and time wasting.
In addition, if one do not show one's credential, some ignorant arse will try to be condescending to one as if one is a kindergarten kid in a subject one is well-verse with.

What is critical here is not self-aggrandizing statements but whether one can walk the talk and justify what is claimed.
You passed the courses without actually understanding what you learned, it's fairly common, the condescending tone is justified.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Vestibule Architect's lazy false precision problem

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 4:34 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 3:47 am
Atla wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 9:07 pm
That's excellent news, seeds's list can be updated again

I did not compile the above, it was Seed's doing. No 4 is a strawman.

I have to counter Pantflasher's [a fucktard] insistence condemnation of quantification of the qualitative.
I have a Masters Degree with emphasis on Problem Solving Techniques; one cannot solve and improve on problems without first quantifying the relevant qualitative variables involved.

Since you are on to it, note;

I have passed a course in Principles of Biochemistry from Harvard University of campus Hardvard-X with very good grades.

I have done extensive research into Ethics and Morality.

Soon, I will be taking courses [where time permit] in Principles [only not the full course] of Computational Neurosciences and other computational subjects.
I will be learning programming and coding in Python and other necessary computer programing.

The above declarations and claims are very common and necessary in presenting one's CVs, e.g. in Linkedin,
https://www.linkedin.com/ etc.
Those in the academic field will often present their credentials in various organizations and papers.

I would say those who hide their credentials are stupid and not effective, i.e. not enabling the other parties to be familiar with their background, thus causing the usual of talking pass each other and time wasting.
In addition, if one do not show one's credential, some ignorant arse will try to be condescending to one as if one is a kindergarten kid in a subject one is well-verse with.

What is critical here is not self-aggrandizing statements but whether one can walk the talk and justify what is claimed.
Agreed. The intelligence, qualifications, experience and character of someone making an argument have absolutely no bearing on the validity and soundness of the argument.

A factual premise can't entail a moral conclusion, because a conclusion can't introduce information not present in the premise. If it does, the argument is a non sequitur and possibly question-begging fallacy. VA's argument for objective morality from actual or putative facts about human nature commits one or both of these fallacies.

The words ought and should have moral and non-moral (instrumental) uses that are completely different. To use them in both ways in an argument, without acknowledgement, is to commit an equivocation fallacy. VA's 'oughtness to do/not to do' argument from human nature to objective morality commits this fallacy.
Note William James version of truths [facts];
James offers an account of truth that, like Peirce’s, is grounded in the practical role played by the concept of truth. James, too, stresses that truth represents a kind of satisfaction: true beliefs are satisfying beliefs, in some sense.

True [factual] ideas, James suggests, are like tools: they make us more efficient by helping us do what needs to be done.
James adds to the previous quote by making the connection between truth and utility explicit:
  • Any idea upon which we can ride, so to speak; any idea that will carry us prosperously from any one part of our experience to any other part, linking things satisfactorily, working securely, simplifying, saving labor; is true for just so much, true in so far forth, true instrumentally. This is the ‘instrumental’ view of truth. (1907 [1975: 34])
While James, here, credits this view to John Dewey and F.C.S. Schiller, it is clearly a view he endorses as well. To understand truth, he argues, we must consider the pragmatic “cash-value” (1907 [1975: 97]) of having true beliefs and the practical difference of having true ideas. True beliefs, he suggests, are useful and dependable in ways that false beliefs are not:
  • you can say of it then either that “it is useful because it is true” or that “it is true because it is useful”. Both these phrases mean exactly the same thing. (1907 [1975: 98])
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trut ... agTheoTrut
My definition of what is fact and what are moral facts are directed at what they can contribute to the well being of humanity in the future in the face of the impending threats to humanity.

As such when I direct my moral facts to real physical referent of moral oughtness or ought-not-ness in the brain, humanity can then direct attention to enable individual to self-develop their inherent moral potential without any external compulsion or threat to comply with any external rules or moral opinions.

Your definition of 'what is fact, i.e. because English speakers say so! is merely an empty thing without any possibility of positive utility which condone more squabbles with more conflicting moral relativism.
Post Reply