Facilitated Communications

[_mfbukowski]

Do you feel there is a qualitative difference between postulating the albino raven versus a pink elephant as an example given in your notes?

Of course.

The assertion was that- whatever it was- I don't even remember- something like one instance of something proves a generalization.

I picked one instance of something objective- albino ravens exist OBJECTIVELY and are scientifically observable and that was what the picture was for

The pink elephant was my classic example of the difference between objective and subjective- if I only see it, it's subjective, if the two of us see it, it's a "phenomenon" like UFO's etc, but if everyone sees it, it's "objective". Incidentally I didn't make that up- it's straight Nagel.

I would have tried to get Stak to clarify that p1 in those instances- one the objective albino raven, and then see if one instance of something "subjective" also proved a generalization to him.

It was from one level of absurd to a truly unquestionable level of absurd that I would have pushed it.

But again- those were just thoughts that are now irrelevant to the discussion because I like Stak have given up on this whole thing.

Frankly I am about done with the forum- I just get too angry- you are right.

As far as who knows what- I will leave that for others to judge.

I think it is quite clear, and I think it is also quite clear that your opinion is different from mine.

I suppose the proof will be in the pudding in the years to come.-- How's that for a pragmatic attitude?

[_mfbukowski]

Well maybe a clear question about a clearly stated or quoted passage with references would help.

I don't have a clue where we are at this point.

Meh, doesn't matter anymore. This has run it's course.

Double meh.

Now if you could just get Honor to agree.....

He knows how to keep goading me, I just need to learn how to not respond. I am not very good at it.

[_honorentheos]

Stak -

Rather than goad mfb myself, perhaps you could respond to his question about his notes?

[_mfbukowski]

Stak -

Rather than goad mfb myself, perhaps you could respond to his question about his notes?

Fergetabout it.

[_honorentheos]

While waiting for Stak -

Do you feel there is a qualitative difference between postulating the albino raven versus a pink elephant as an example given in your notes?

Of course.
...
I picked one instance of something objective- albino ravens exist OBJECTIVELY and are scientifically observable and that was what the picture was for

The pink elephant was my classic example of the difference between objective and subjective- if I only see it, it's subjective, if the two of us see it, it's a "phenomenon" like UFO's etc, but if everyone sees it, it's "objective". Incidentally I didn't make that up- it's straight Nagel.

I would have tried to get Stak to clarify that p1 in those instances- one the objective albino raven, and then see if one instance of something "subjective" also proved a generalization to him.

It was from one level of absurd to a truly unquestionable level of absurd that I would have pushed it.

It's interesting that you confuse Stak's actual position for the one he asserts is your own. It's actually humorous to see you attacking this paradox from the same angle other's attack your assertions about prag-magic vis-a-vis Mormonism. I have to give it to Stak, this has been the most entertaining thread I've seen you engage in for it's simple timeless comedic value; kinda like a "Who's on First?" skit. It's interesting that when Stak comes in and yanks the sheets off the philosophy bed you hide in, you proclaim he is too stuck on -isms, while continuing to name drop while convenient then punting with a declaration that you are not tied to any one person's views. Yet, your views remain unstated, and every attempt to get you to lay them out via example becomes a dead end. Same old mfb.

You see, my old friend, I wasn't doubting your abilities in asking you to show how you, mfb, would approach refuting the raven paradox. What interests me is that I have seen you disallow every mechanism required to do so - when they are applied to Mormonism. It wasn't that I questioned if you were able, I simply questioned that you would be willing to go on the record as allowing them.

You didn't disappoint when you side-stepped it.

I suppose the proof will be in the pudding in the years to come.-- How's that for a pragmatic attitude?

Yes, when the church adjusts it's views on homosexuality, we will find that all of this play acting was for naught but sport.

Won't happen, you say? It's happened before. It'll happen again.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Stak -

Rather than goad mfb myself, perhaps you could respond to his question about his notes?

His "notes" don't really say anything, that's why I was avoiding them, I was trying to be charitable. But...I aim to please. I'll try to respond to the things that look like comments that might be relevent:

"P1: A generalization is confirmed by any of it’s instances."

So if I see a pink elephant, the generalization "Pink elephants exist" is now confirmed?

Or if there is one albino white raven, the generalization that ravens are white is confirmed?

Yes? I don’t understand why we are treading this ground. Is confirmation and disconfirmation of an instance something new?

"P2: If two hypotheses can be known a priori to be equivalent, then any data that confirms one confirms the other."

What does that even mean? How do we know that two hypotheses can be known a priori to be equivalent? Does that mean deductively? Logically equivalent?

I have no idea why this should confuse you, in any deductive logic, given an empty set, you can symbolize a statement and logically show the negation of it’s negation to be the case.

X is the same as ~(~X), or do you find this to be controversial?

Attitude: A pragmatist would never state that anything is always anything else. What good does it do to state that all ravens are black? What is the purpose of that statement? All it would take is one albino raven to destroy the hypothesis. What does it get us? It's just a game!

It’s a pretty simple statement, to demonstrate an idea. Telling me what would destroy the hypothesis (which is blatantly obvious to anyone) is…I don’t even know. Too obvious? What it gets you, is an example of a problem in induction without needing a lot of complication.

Who says I disagree with Quine???

I would. You don’t get to use Subjective/Objective distinction. You can’t claim that “religion” is subjective and immune to science, because that is exactly what Quine set out to do, give nothing a privileged position.

No Sense, No Meaning, No a priori/posterior, No analytic/synthetic, No necessary/contingent , no subjective/objective. You get Reference, that is all.

Confusing inductive a priori with philsophical?

I have zero idea what exactly he is getting at here, but inductive a priori would have a ratio of n/m for every case of X being Y. A bit too complicated for what we are shooting for here.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Fergetabout it.

Excellent.

[_mfbukowski]

Stak -

Rather than goad mfb myself, perhaps you could respond to his question about his notes?

His "notes" don't really say anything, that's why I was avoiding them, I was trying to be charitable. But...I aim to please. I'll try to respond to the things that look like comments that might be relevent:

"P1: A generalization is confirmed by any of it’s instances."

So if I see a pink elephant, the generalization "Pink elephants exist" is now confirmed?

Or if there is one albino white raven, the generalization that ravens are white is confirmed?

Yes? I don’t understand why we are treading this ground. Is confirmation and disconfirmation of an instance something new?

"P2: If two hypotheses can be known a priori to be equivalent, then any data that confirms one confirms the other."

What does that even mean? How do we know that two hypotheses can be known a priori to be equivalent? Does that mean deductively? Logically equivalent?

I have no idea why this should confuse you, in any deductive logic, given an empty set, you can symbolize a statement and logically show the negation of it’s negation to be the case.

X is the same as ~(~X), or do you find this to be controversial?

Attitude: A pragmatist would never state that anything is always anything else. What good does it do to state that all ravens are black? What is the purpose of that statement? All it would take is one albino raven to destroy the hypothesis. What does it get us? It's just a game!

It’s a pretty simple statement, to demonstrate an idea. Telling me what would destroy the hypothesis (which is blatantly obvious to anyone) is…I don’t even know. Too obvious? What it gets you, is an example of a problem in induction without needing a lot of complication.

Who says I disagree with Quine???

I would. You don’t get to use Subjective/Objective distinction. You can’t claim that “religion” is subjective and immune to science, because that is exactly what Quine set out to do, give nothing a privileged position.

No Sense, No Meaning, No a priori/posterior, No analytic/synthetic, No necessary/contingent , no subjective/objective. You get Reference, that is all.

Confusing inductive a priori with philsophical?

I have zero idea what exactly he is getting at here, but inductive a priori would have a ratio of n/m for every case of X being Y. A bit too complicated for what we are shooting for here.

Just to make it clear, since Stak got one last shot, there is nothing new here but re-iteration of the previous discussion- our disagreement on Quine and Hempel, and I think even Stak would agree that we have agreed to disagree on these points.

This thread is hereby pronounced dead and buried, at least by me, at last, Amen.

I have family commitments to take care of which will occupy much of my time for a while

[_honorentheos]

Hi MFB,

Glad to see this thread has been declared dead. I've held on to thought for quite a while that I feel would make an appropriate coda to your pragmatic claims.

You described your salt-of-the-earth uncle from Maine as being a prime example of pragmatism as it really matters. I'm sure such an example really chaffed the more technically minded philosophers among us, but it was interesting to me for a simple reason -

I've had opportunity to interact with you on both this board and on MADB many, many times. I've also observed your behavior towards others, both friend and foe, on these two forums over a period of time well past a year now.

If I needed only one argument to feel strongly that when all the words and hand-waving incantations are done, what you actually believe (as an individual and not as a member of any particular religion or non-religion) is not a very good path down which to follow, it's your example on these boards. I mean that as honestly as if I just spit on the ground and told you what's what.

[_mfbukowski]

Hi MFB,...
If I needed only one argument to feel strongly that when all the words and hand-waving incantations are done, what you actually believe (as an individual and not as a member of any particular religion or non-religion) is not a very good path down which to follow, it's your example on these boards. I mean that as honestly as if I just spit on the ground and told you what's what.

Well I am genuinely sorry for that and would welcome a chance to make amends.

Maybe we can take it to PM or something- I think a lot of our communication problem arises because we are playing to the audience.