kateblu
27
22
kateblu has not written any posts yet.
Definition is the basis of language. Without a common understanding of terms, there can be no discussion. Anything that has not been falsified is theory unless it is proven to be true. Without a common understanding of terms, how can we know that a statement has been proven false? Mathematics is the most rigorous language in the sense that there is nearly universal understanding of terms among professional mathematicians, but it is still a language. The answer to your question is unambiguous; if a dog has a set of appendages that we will call "Legs" that consists of four of what we commonly call legs plus one tail, then the number of elements in the set of "Legs" is equal to 5. We could say that the set L = {a,a,a,a,b). Either way, it is simply a matter of definition - not really a 'goofy game'.
"If we define a religion to be a system of thought that contains unprovable statements, so it contains an element of faith, then Gödel has taught us that not only is mathematics a religion but it is the only religion able to prove itself to be one."
John Barrow, Pi in the Sky, 1992
Confidence is a state of mind. It is critical from the standpoint of motivation. Without confidence we would be paralyzed into inaction; we would be unable to turn decisions into structured consequences. We would be constantly "scoping the game plan" and never playing. However, confidence should not play a major role in making decisions. Cold rationality is key in two aspects of the decision process: (a) how important is the decision? (b) if the decision is important, what is the "outside view" ? (per Kahneman) The first decision, IMO, should be handled with an algorithm analogous to triage and requires ascertaining sufficient basic... (read more)
True, but you must remember that it is HER adventure. She is the one who hit the "pause" button. Did he have the ability to say "No"? Was there a "pause" button that he could have hit before she did?
I think he wanted to create his eden without the assistance of machines. Since he has been at it apparently for centuries, he couldn't be totally natural.
Magnificent. I gather one has an eternity to figure out his or her version of utopia and that physical death is an option. It's not quite clear to me whether Ishtar exists in manipulated multiverses or as an avatar with her brain in a vat, or ?
Along the lines of the 'ambiguity of gray'? Or that something classified as gray can be said to be inherently undefined? To think about anything, it seems that we have to categorize it in some way. The category we choose unless it is a category of that one item, will be a model also used to describe things or concepts that differ in significant ways from the 'it' we are trying to think about. The fallacy of black and white might then be described as confusing the category with the item itself. The fallacy of gray would be a failure to recognize that gray is a non-category used for 'its' we have not yet been able usefully to categorize as properly belonging with other 'its' on one side of the spectrum or the other.
Thinking about the title of the post: why is gray a fallacy?
Yes, I mean all bias. My working definition of bias is the set of assumptions we more or less rely on for most of our daily activity. In most of what I do, I don't have time or it's not worth the energy to scrutinize all the underlying assumptions that shape my reactions. But I can develop methodologies to identify when I need to be more critical of my assumptions and think before I act. I can also, I hope, learn to be a better analytical thinker and problem solver.
(with a smile) Perhaps we need to define definition. True that definitions are based on language. Also true, I believe, that if language is to communicate effectively, it will need commonly understood meanings for specific sounds/symbols. I may "see as red" what you "see as orange". My guess is that we both saw and could differentiate between colors before we knew the commonly accepted terms for them.