## Principles vs Pragmatism

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

surreptitious57 wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 8:22 am Judges and magistrates are only human and so by the laws of averages will get it wrong from time to time
Juries get it wrong for the same reason so never expect an infallible success rate as that is just impossible
Sure. This is a statistical truism. ROC curves.

https://www.medcalc.org/manual/roc-curves.php

To date humans have not invented a perfect binary classifier. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_classification

Any scenario in which you have to classify things into two categories suffers from true negatives and false positives.

True/false classification.
Guilty/innocent classification.
Competent/incompetent classification.
Valid/invalid classification.

Any A/B classification will produce things in the B category which are A, and tings in the A category which are B.

If perfection is what you are after - find yourself another universe.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4225
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

### Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Logic wrote:
True / false classification
Guilty / innocent classification
Competent / incompetent classification
Valid / invalid classification
Good / bad is entirely subjective and impossible to quantify objectively
True / false can be objectively determined with mathematics / logic
Guilty / innocent can be objectively determined with evidence
Competent / incompetent is subjective but not absolutely so
Valid / invalid can be objectively demonstrated with logic
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

surreptitious57 wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 8:37 am Good / bad is entirely subjective and impossible to quantify objectively
Observe the use of "quantify". ALL dichotomies I have listed are asserted by a subject.

So the "objectivity" of the quantification is as good or as bad as the precision of your measuring apparatus.
surreptitious57 wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 8:37 am True / false can be objectively determined with mathematics / logic
Logic/mathematics are idealisations constrained to the domain of deductive reasoning.

This reality only allows for inductive reasoning. When you use deduction in an inductive realm you will make errors.
ROC curves are the quantification/analysis of the error rate.

Only a human can decide whether the consequences of any particular error are trivial or devastating.

surreptitious57 wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 8:37 am Guilty / innocent can be objectively determined with evidence
And is also subject to errors.
False positives - innocent people being incorrectly convicted.
True negatives - guilty people being set free.
surreptitious57 wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 8:37 am Competent / incompetent is subjective but not absolutely so
It's as subjective or as objective as your yardstick.
surreptitious57 wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 8:37 am Valid / invalid can be objectively demonstrated with logic
Using "logic" and "objective" in the same sentence gives me the shivers. Logic is just LEGO. We use it to build models of reality.

The closest to "objectivity" science can ever come to is calibrated measurements. But those are always relative to something.
Judaka
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:24 pm

### Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Logik wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 7:51 am
Judaka wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 7:12 am "a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning."

I am not thinking that principles in this context have anything to do with morality.
The distinction between systems of behaviour and systems of morality is artificial.

From an analytic perspective all systems are made up of rules which define what "correct" and "incorrect" behaviour/thought/reasoning/interaction means. Error means rule-violation.

Go ahead and provide a convincing argument for why we should build systems to prevent/minimise errors and see if you will come up with anything other than a moral argument.
No problem.

All language is recursive and therefore all positions are contradictory therefore mathematics, physics and computer science ALSO your argument is poorly reasoned but I won't respond to it lest I allow you the discussion to be debated in your terms. p.s I dismantled your poorly reasoned argument. p.p.s I'm not dumb enough to have a serious conversation with you again.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Judaka wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 8:59 am p.s I dismantled your poorly reasoned argument.
You did? By what objective standard for "poor" and "skilled" reasoning?

Maybe you meant to say "You don't think like me and I know I am right."
Judaka wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 8:59 am I won't respond to it lest I allow you the discussion to be debated in your terms
So you don't want the discussion to be debated on neutral terms? Where language is only used in a descriptive and value-free form?

Sure. What bias would you prefer as a platform for our discussion?
Judaka wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 8:59 am p.p.s I'm not dumb enough to have a serious conversation with you again.
My expert opinion is that you are, in fact, too dumb to recognise that all descriptions/philosophical interpretations/conceptual schemes of reality are equally valid without an objective value-system to discriminate and rank them by.

That is why you are incapable of having a serious conversation. Value-systems are the only point of contention.
Last edited by Logik on Wed Jan 30, 2019 9:16 am, edited 2 times in total.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4225
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

### Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Logic wrote:
The closest to objectivity science can ever come to is calibrated measurements . But those are always relative
So it is asymptotic in that over time the scientific method becomes more and more rigorous but it can never attain perfection
As this is the basic problem with both induction and abduction : they are always going to be limited by incomplete knowledge
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

surreptitious57 wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 9:09 am So it is asymptotic in that over time the scientific method becomes more and more rigorous but it can never attain perfection
As this is the basic problem with both induction and abduction : they are always going to be limited by incomplete knowledge
Then why do you insist on perfect classifiers?

That towards which the asymptotes converge towards is "morality". If you so wish.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4225
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

### Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Logic wrote:
Then why do you insist on perfect classifiers
I use the word objective simply as it is defined
I accept it does not apply to science but it does to a deductive discipline like mathematics
If the word objective had no utility then it would not actually be in use but it does so it is
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

surreptitious57 wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 9:16 am I use the word objective simply as it is defined
I accept it does not apply to science but it does to a deductive discipline like mathematics
If the word objective had no utility then it would not actually be in use but it does so it is
The word "objective" doesn't apply to ANYTHING without some axiomatic inter-subjective consensus.

What is the objective color of the sky? We can all agree to call it "blue". Great! We have a point of reference for "blue" things!

Then we ask "Is X the same color as the sky?" Is X blue?

Trichromats say "yes".
Tetrachromats say "no".

Uhhh. Now what?

Is X blue or not?!?
Judaka
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:24 pm

### Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Logik wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 9:05 am
Judaka wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 8:59 am p.s I dismantled your poorly reasoned argument.
You did? By what objective standard for "poor" and "skilled" reasoning?

Maybe you meant to say "You don't think like me and I know I am right."
Judaka wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 8:59 am I won't respond to it lest I allow you the discussion to be debated in your terms
So you don't want the discussion to be debated on neutral terms? Where language is only used in a descriptive and value-free form?

Sure. What bias would you prefer as a platform for our discussion?
Judaka wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 8:59 am p.p.s I'm not dumb enough to have a serious conversation with you again.
My expert opinion is that you are, in fact, too dumb to recognise that all descriptions/philosophical interpretations/conceptual schemes of reality are equally valid without an objective value-system to discriminate and rank them by.

That is why you are incapable of having a serious conversation. Value-systems are the only point of contention.
LMAO logik, that post was a parody of the arguments you've used against me. I can't believe you took it seriously, you're something special.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Judaka wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 9:25 am LMAO logik, that post was a parody of the arguments you've used against me. I can't believe you took it seriously, you're something special.
Yes, you parodied the argument I use against all sophistry: Justify your value-system.

Since all disagreements seem to boil down to that one point, I see your parody as an attempt at deflection rather than tackling the issue.

On this side of the is-ought gap logic and "reason" are not in your toolbox. It's all bartering and battle of wills.
Last edited by Logik on Wed Jan 30, 2019 9:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4225
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

### Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Logic wrote:
The word objective doesnt apply to ANYTHING without some axiomatic inter subjective consensus
And that consensus says that the definition of objective is that which is mind independent / the opposite of subjective
This also applies to anything outside of human knowledge / experience and anything in this category is truly objective
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

surreptitious57 wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 9:43 am And that consensus says that the definition of objective is that which is mind independent / the opposite of subjective
This also applies to anything outside of human knowledge / experience and anything in this category is truly objective
Did you just read only half of my comment so you can jump right back into your "mind-independent" dogmatism?

Person A says "The sky is green".
Person B agrees because the word we've chosen doesn't matter as long as we use it consistently.
Person A then says "X is also green - the same color as the sky".
Person B disagrees because X is clearly NOT the same color as the sky.

Person A is a trichromat.
Person B is a tetrachromat.

Is X objectively green? Yes or no.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4225
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

### Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Colour is a subjective experience so cannot also be objective as that would violate the Law Of Non Contradiction
So you need to come up with a better example than that if you want to invalidate my particular use of objective

I gave you an example : anything which is mind indepedent for which there is no human knowledge / experience
And this cannot even be discussed because its actual existence is not known which makes it truly truly objective

And such phenomena do exist because human knowledge is finite and therefore incomplete
Last time I mentioned this you said since nothing can be known about them they are useless

However we are discussing objectivity not utility so the claim although true is irrelevant to what is being discussed here
So either invalidate my own definition or provide a better counter example for objective than the one you already have
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

surreptitious57 wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:05 am Colour is a subjective experience so cannot also be objective as that would violate the Law Of Non Contradiction
Now you have divvied up "experience" into "subjective and objective". This is begging the question!

You are yet to demonstrate objectivity rather than assume it.
surreptitious57 wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:05 am So you need to come up with a better example than that if you want to invalidate my particular use of objective
There is nothing wrong with my example.

I asked you if the color of X is objectively blue. It's a yes/no question. You can't decide the answer.

I can turn ANY and ALL "objective claims" into yes/no questions.

Is the Earth objectively round? Yes or no.
Does water objectively boil at 373 degrees Kelvin ? Yes or no.
surreptitious57 wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:05 am I gave you an example : anything which is mind indepedent for which there is no human knowledge / experience
And this cannot even be discussed because its actual existence is not known which makes it truly truly objective
So you have no empirical example of such a thing? Interesting...

surreptitious57 wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:05 am And such phenomena do exist because human knowledge is finite and therefore incomplete
Last time I mentioned this you said since nothing can be known about them they are useless
How do you know they exist if you have no empirical (EXPERIENCE!) evidence for them?

The human mind is a measurement apparatus!
Last edited by Logik on Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:18 am, edited 3 times in total.