leftrightleft wrote:

Nicko wrote:

leftrightleft wrote:So I have two questions:

1) Do you agree with me that the universe seems rationally intelligible?

The bits that we've been able to produce working theories about seem "rationally intelligible".

leftrightleft wrote:2) If yes, why do you think this is so?

Because we've produced working theories about those parts.

None of which amounts to a claim that the universe is - in some ultimate sense - "rationally intelligible".

I'll put it to you this way.

What would be the subjective difference between you encountering something "rationally unintelligible" and you encountering something that was "rationally intelligible" but which you simply failed to understand?

Thanks for the response. I think your answer falls in the: "It can't be any other way" category.

I don't think so, because I am not saying that the universe is - in any ultimate sense - "rationally intelligible" or not.

I'm simply pointing out that any part or aspect of the universe that we are able to rationally understand must, by definition, be "rationally intelligible". It's tautologous.

leftrightleft wrote:In answer to your question: there is no subjective difference.

So there is no way of knowing whether something we don't understand is possible or impossible to understand. All that we know is that we don't understand it. All we can do about it is to continue to investigate in a rational fashion; it's the only thing that's ever produced reliable knowledge and actual understanding.

In other words, the universe may ultimately be rationally unintelligible. We'll never know though.

What I am pretty sure of is that it will not turn out to be irrationally intelligible.

leftrightleft wrote:Most people I know think that the universe is rationally intelligible regardless of their stance on theism. If you do not fall into that category, please comment below and explain why you do not think it is rationally intelligible.

By "rationally intelligible", I mean that it can be studied, understood, modelled mathematically, predicted, and tested repeatedly. Not only that, but it is often done so with beautiful symmetries, simple equations and (seemingly) unchanging constants. The simple symmetry between Coulomb's Law and Newton's Law of Gravitation come to mind. The Rydberg Constant is another beautifully simple prediction. ...

Then how do you explain why the laws of physics aren't quite perfectly symmetrical. For example, the electro-weak interaction, and the imbalance between matter and anti-matter in the big bang, that lead to a net amount of matter after the first instants of the big bang. (In other words, we would not even exist if there was perfect symmetry, as you seem to think.)

Cito di Pense wrote:

leftrightleft wrote:"By what mechanism is the universe rationally intelligible?"

By means of systematic empirical investigation, also known as science. By what means is systematic investigation possible? By being systematic! Why is anything systematic? Round and round we go, diddling the philosopher's beard.

So my understanding is that you think the question itself is dumb and/or not useful. You also don't seem to like philosophy in general. That's fine. Many philosophers have asked this question in the past. We likely won't ever get an answer perhaps because the question is, as you contend, stupid.

"I'm in Pittsburgh. Why am I here?"

I'm not sure of the context of this quote and how it relates to the conversation at hand.

leftrightleft wrote:
Assuming the Earth is flat in an engineering problem may only be a justified assumption on smaller spatial scales.
Assuming the laws of the universe apply may only be a justified assumption on certain spatial/temporal scales. Maybe a multiverse or parallel universe exists in which such an assumption is no longer justified.

All your examples depend on showing empirically that there exist circumstances in which the approximation (not assumption) is no longer justified.

The "flat earth assumption" and "plane wave assumption" are common phrases. Often "approximation" is equivocated with "assumption" although, as you point out, this may not be an accurate equivocation if we take your more strict definition of assumption. I define assumption as "something which need not be justified". This is the way the word is most often used. We have many assumptions in science. The flat earth assumption need not be justified at the start of every engineering report. But it can be justified, if required.

If you define assumption as: "Something which cannot be justified" then, assumptions, by definition, cannot be justified. However, I am unsure if this is how the word is often used in scientific conversation. If words get re-defined away from how they are used in the real world, then that would represent definitional retreat.

How about you answer some questions instead of parading around in your Socratic robes like you're running the show. You don't apparently have much to offer on how to apply the concept of 'assumption' besides a copypasta of some URLs you desperately scrounged up using your favorite search engine; I recommend you next try the Stanford Encyclopedia of Aimless Wibble.

I asked a question and I was looking for some opinions/thoughts/answers/ideas. Why do you suddenly demand that I answer my own question(s)? You use this dramatic imagery of "Socratic robes" like I'm "running the show". Well...I asked the question on an internet forum, so I guess I kinda am "running the show" as far as this thread goes. There's no requirement of me to answer the question if I am solely seeking opinions/thoughts/answers/ideas from others. Not only that, but I don't actually have an answer to the thread question. Which is precisely why I asked it.

I think you thought I came here for a fight or debate, when in reality, I didn't.

You've offered your opinion which, roughly summarized is: the question is shit.

Thank you for your contribution.

Let's quote some Feynman at you: Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.

I wonder if Feynman and Popper got along...

Cito di Pense wrote:

hackenslash wrote:I'm beginning to wonder if you have the equipment.

At best, I think we have a student (possibly even a doctoral student) in the history and philosophy of science who picked an episode in the history of geophysics as the focus of a thesis or dissertation. He comes in here dropping a few names from the history of his topic and regurgitates a few boilerplate quantities of a specialized branch of geophysical exploration, and gives no evidence that the mathematics makes any sense at all to him. It's happened here before, and it will happen again. What gives it away is the deepening focus on details of epistemology and semantics, the ideology of exploration, and the noob's overview of cosmology. Nothing here to see yet. Let's see what LRL comes back with.

Nope, I really am just a lowly geophysicist. Worked in O&G for a few years. Back at school to study volcanos using magnetotellurics now since the economy is shit.

I've appreciated our conservation, and I've been very patient amidst your unnecessary digs. I think you would have more useful discourse if you avoided such things and tried to be more polite. For example, Sendraks, Thommo and Animavore are examples of posters who were able to politely disagree and have good conversation.

Anyway, this is my last response to you in this thread. Thanks again for the conversation.

hackenslash wrote:

leftrightleft wrote:"By what mechanism is the universe rationally intelligible?"

Interesting that you skip over the several posts wherein this bollocks was dealt with only to erect it anyway.

The mechanism by which the universe is rationally intelligible is quantity.

Could you point to the post where this was said? I may have missed it.

This is an interesting idea though. Are you saying that the universe is rationally intelligible simply because we can quantify and/or measure it?

Several sources disagree with you:

Do they? Have you actually checked with them that they disagree with me, or have you taken what they've said at face value without ever checking that they've actually been rigorous in their formulations? Finding the odd source that disagrees doesn't actually lend weight to your case. You have to justify it logically, and I can certainly do that. Can you?

(emphasis mine)

Recall that you said: "if it's justified, it isn't an assumption" and I replied, "Several sources disagree with you."

Now the bolded bit perplexes me, because when you get into definitional arguments, it seems that all you have to go on is popular opinion. I mean, how else can you justify the definition of a word?

So the only way I can "justify [a definition] logically" is by pointing to reputable sources (such as the University of Berkeley, or a reputable dictionary) which give definitions that are widely accepted.

"assumptions, can be unjustified or justified, depending upon whether we do or do not have good reasons for them"
--> http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/c ... ptions/484

Who?

Criticalthinking.org. A great organization that promotes critical thinking in education and the sciences.

What's the justification for accepting this unknown source over me?

Because they are a 35-year old organization which has worked tirelessly to promote critical thinking in education and the sciences. Its not some random unknown source. Their mission statement is here: http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/our-mission/405

I would trust their definitions and opinions over a random internet blogger/forum participant any day.

Can you do better than 'he said, she said'?

Not really. Not when it comes to definitional arguments. If you can find reputable sources which define assumption a different way, then maybe we can talk about it. And even then we run into a problem where the word "assumption" may be used differently in different contexts. All-in-all definitional arguments often don't get us anywhere.

Ultimately, I can demolish your quotation with a single phrase. When an assumption is justified, it's no longer an assumption, it's an evidentially supported postulate.

What you just gave me is a possible definition of the word "assumption". You did not "demolish" my quotation. All you did was offer an alternative definition. Now, does anyone else use that definition you just provided? I don't know unless you cite reputable sources. You see? It ultimately is just a "he said, she said" game. Definitions are popularity contests.

So, if you find a reputable source which supports your definition, then maybe we can begin having a conversation. Until then, you may as well have just defined an assumption as "a spherical, orange fruit with a thick skin".

Ares you fucking sure you want to play the semantics game with me? I guaranfuckingtee I'm much better at it than you or anybody you've ever met.

Alright.

"Much as we might like to avoid it, all scientific tests involve making assumptions — many of them justified"
--> http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_13

Of course scientific tests involve making assumptions. In this particular case, those assumptions are known as 'hypotheses' or, in the case of those that have been observationally justified, 'evidentially supported postulates'. My postulate is that you don't have a fucking clue of what you're on about, and the evidence is mounting rapidly.

More polite discourse required. Thanks. Try making polite arguments without resorting to ad hominem fallacies.

Please continue to link to resources for elementary school teachers on matters of scientific epistemology, though. It's always fun to watch a fish out of water floundering to save face.

Those two links were the first two hits on Google when I searched "does an assumption not need to be justified?" I asked the negative of the question to try to avoid confirmation bias. Not sure if Google is smart enough to figure that out though...

Regardless, criticalthinking.org is an awesome organization which works to promote science and critical thinking in our education systems. And the University of Berkeley is a well-respected school. Its not like I'm linking to fringe blogs or something...

Yes, some physicists, who happen to like winning prizes erected by fuckwits, have suggested that it [light] might not be [a constant], but their attempts have all fallen flat (except their attempts to win the prize money off the fuckwits, of course, because a fuckwit and his money are soon parted, to paraphrase a famous name from my own business).

If someone questions the prevailing wisdom, formulates a hypothesis, and tests that hypothesis, I don't care how wrong they might be, I think they are pushing the boundaries and that's what advances science. Here's one such article: http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.3987. The universe is consistently weirder and more complicated than we think it is.

The great thing about science is you never know what you're gonna get. Tomorrow, someone might make a discovery that suggests the speed of light actually is dependent on some other quantity. I'm not going to sit here claiming that he is a fuckwit.

I'm beginning to wonder if you have the equipment.

Ad hominem.

I think, if you respond to this post, I will probably make one more response. This is partly because we have gone so far from the thread topic into the rabbit hole, that someone has to stop at some point. I've essentially learned from this thread that some people think that the question itself is horribly flawed. That's fine. That's a good perspective to know about and perhaps a reformulation of the question would be beneficial.

I've also found that you and Cito come across as unnecessarily rude and use unnecessary digs at the person. I'm not sure if you are simply trying to illicit a reaction, but I would suggest that you would have better conversation if you avoided such things. I apologize if I have misinterpreted you but tone is inherently difficult to convey in writing.

Thanks for the conversation.

leftrightleft wrote:So my understanding is that you think the question itself is dumb and/or not useful.

I suspect my friend is of the opinion that it's just a poorly formed question, and that until it's framed in a rigorous manner, it can't have any utility.

You also don't seem to like philosophy in general.

Pretty sure that's wrong. Like many, though (including many who've studied this shit at degree level), you seem not to understand what the proper remit of philosophy is, and here's why:

That's fine. Many philosophers have asked this question in the past. We likely won't ever get an answer perhaps because the answer is, as you contend, stupid.

It appears that you think that philosophy answers questions. In reality, it answers only one question, namely 'is this the right sort of question?' Providing answer isn't what philosophy is about, it's about analysing questions for utility. Philosophy is in the business of teaching one how to think, not what to think. As soon as you allow it to tell you what to think, you're doing it wrong. Philosophy is the art of ensuring that the correct sort of logic is being applied to a situation.

If you define assumption as: "Something which cannot be justified" then, assumptions, by definition, cannot be justified. However, I am unsure if this is how the word is often used in scientific conversation.

That's not how it's being applied here. An assumption is not something that cannot be justified, but something that has yet to be justified. Once justified, it's no longer an assumption.

If words get re-defined away from how they are used in the real world, then that would represent definitional retreat.

Two points here:

1. It doesn't matter how definitions are generally employed in the 'real world' (whatever the holy fuck you might mean by that), it only matters that we pin down our definitions here so that we understand what we're talking about here.

2. There's no redefinition here, only an admonition to apply some rigour to your definition, because it's woolly as all fuck.

When you assume, you make an ass out of u and me. When you assume that the definition that the morons out there in the 'real world' are employing is sufficiently robust for such a discussion, you're being fucking silly. And yes, the vast majority of people out there are morons.

I think you thought I came here for a fight or debate, when in reality, I didn't.

I don't think so, I think he thinks you came here with what you thought was a really interesting question and, when it was eviscerated by the critical thinkers here, got a bit butthurt. Get over yourself. You never know, you might even learn something.

Let's quote some Feynman at you: Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.

I wonder if Feynman and Popper got along...

I don't think Popper really did anything for science, only for how people think about science. I actually think Feynman was wrong on this point, but then he couldn't have know at the time he said that that ornithology would have such massive implications for avian conservation. That aside, hat Popper did was to provide a formalism for bringing deduction into scientific epistemology. He had pretty much fuck all influence on what goers on on the operational side of laboratory door. And that's even before we get into the fact that he was pretty much superseded by Kuhn. Popper was also wrong in his major contention, but that's by-the-by.

If you want to talk philosophy here, let alone philosophy of science, you'll have to do much more than merely dropping names. You'll find that we know our shit here.

I've appreciated our conservation, and I've been very patient amidst your unnecessary digs.

It isn't for you ton decide what is and what is not necessary when responding to posts here.

I think you would have more useful discourse if you avoided such things and tried to be more polite. For example, Sendraks and Thommo are examples of posters who were able to politely disagree and have good conversation.

And yet you were admonishing Thommo earlier. How does that work?

leftrightleft wrote:Could you point to the post where this was said? I may have missed it.

Seriously? Looks suspiciously like stage 1 JAQing off, that. In the spirit of the benefit of the doubt, though, see post #56.

This is an interesting idea though. Are you saying that the universe is rationally intelligible simply because we can quantify and/or measure it?

Really? Did I, at any point, say that the universe is rationally intelligible?

Here's a fucking clue. Whenever you're about to ask 'did you mean...?', ram the question back into the sphincter from which it was extracted, because you've definitely got it wrong. If your English is so poor that my meaning wasn't clear, ask what I meant. I mean exactly and only what I say. If you wish to have a discussion with the hackenslash that exists only in your head, kindly keep that fucking shit to yourself. I have enough trolls already to deal with, and more are not welcome.

Now the bolded bit perplexes me, because when you get into definitional arguments, it seems that all you have to go on is popular opinion. I mean, how else can you justify the definition of a word?

I could expound at length on this topic,m but since I've done so in the past, I'll just link you to the search results.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/membe ... 0necessary

So the only way I can "justify [a definition] logically" is by pointing to reputable sources (such as the University of Berkeley, or a reputable dictionary) which give definitions that are widely accepted.

You might also look up 'argumentum ad lexicum' and find out why this might be problematic.

Criticalthinking.org. A great organization that promotes critical thinking in education and the sciences.

But who can't correctly define 'assumption'. Is this a veiled verecundiam?

Because they are a 35-year old organization

Argumentum ad antiquetatem.

which has worked tirelessly to promote critical thinking in education and the sciences. Its not some random unknown source. Their mission statement is here: http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/our-mission/405

Actually, that's exactly what it is. I've never heard of them, and they're wrong. Their mission statement is irrelevant, as is their age and what they do, not least because they don't fucking know what an assumption is. What they're actually defining there is the term 'axiom' and poorly at that.

I would trust their definitions and opinions over a random internet blogger/forum participant any day.

And there's the verecundiam in all its glory. Ih, and there's exactly fuck all random about me. I( want tpo put a marker here in to demonstrate a beautiful tu quoque that's on its way, though.

Not really.

Then you've got exactly fuck all.

Not when it comes to definitional arguments. If you can find reputable sources which define assumption a different way, then maybe we can talk about it.

Sources? That's entirely the fucking problem, genius. You need a source, while I need simple and demonstrable logical principles. Your entire line of thought is based on a crystal clear logical fallacy, the verecundiam. Read my lips and learn: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN AUTHORITY ON WHAT WORDS FUCKING MEAN. Until you learn this simple fact, thought will just be something that happens to other people.

And even then we run into a problem where the word "assumption" may be used differently in different contexts. All-in-all definitional arguments often don't get us anywhere.

This is merely the 'it's just semantics' argument.

Semantics deals with what we mean when we say a thing. As such it's the very heart of communication.

The vast majority of philosophy (of which science is a subset, albeit the only one that's ever provided substantive knowledge of the universe) is concerned with semantics. Read any discourse on philosophy, and you'll find that a huge amount of the time is spent defining and justifying terms.

As such semantics is among the most important disciplines in philosophy. Dismissing an argument on the basis that 'it's just semantics' is, therefore, and to employ a favourite footballing analogy, the equivalent of diving in the penalty area. It's a cheat. A lazy cop-out indicating that you have neither the wherewithal to deal with your opponents argument nor the intellectual honesty to simply admit it. In other words, it's a spectacular breach of the 9th commandment.

Well done.

What you just gave me is a possible definition of the word "assumption". Does anyone else use that definition you just provided? I don't know unless you cite reputable sources. You see? It ultimately is just a "he said, she said" game. Definitions are popularity contests.

No, they really aren't. See above

So, if you find a reputable source which supports your definition, then maybe we can begin having a conversation. Until then, you may as well have just defined an assumption as "a spherical, orange fruit with a thick skin".

I don't need a reputable source, not least because the request itself is fallacious. Sources are a popularity contest, robust definitions are not.

More polite discourse required. Thanks. Try making polite arguments without resorting to ad hominem fallacies.

Fuck polite, and the horse it rode in on. I don't give a fuck if your fee-fees are hurt, only if you can actually argue your case. Go tell your fucking psychiatrist about my tone, because I don't fucking care. Mention this again, and the gloves will come off.

snip waffle

Ad hominem.

No, genius. If I'd said, 'you're a fuckwit, therefore your argument is wrong', that would be an ad hominem. If I said, you're wrong, fuckwit, and here's why...' not an ad hominem. I detailed reasons why you were wrong and then wondered whether you had the correct equipment, which details such things as, oh, I don't know, being able to correctly identify a fallacy. See how this goes?

Evidence; it fucking works.

I think

I'll be the judge of that.

if you respond to this post, I will probably make one more response.

Diddums.

This is partly because we have gone so far from the thread topic into the rabbit hole, that someone has to stop at some point. I've essentially learned from this thread that some people think that the question itself is horribly flawed. That's fine. That's a good perspective to know about and perhaps a reformulation of the question would be beneficial.

I don't merely think it is, I fucking demonstrated that it is. The butthurt is entirely your problem. I couldn't give a flying fuck whether you correct your thinking or not. I'm not here to change your mind about your woolly thinking, only to see that it doesn't go unchallenged.

I've also found that you and Cito come across as unnecessarily rude

Diddums. As soon as somebody happens along for whom your opinion is worth two shits, feel free to tell them all the fuck about it.

and use unnecessary digs at the person. I'm not sure if you are simply trying to illicit a reaction, but I would suggest that you would have better conversation if you avoided such things.

How do you fucking know what constitutes a good conversation for me? Aside from anything else, a good conversation for me is one in which my interlocutor doesn't pass off bollocks as wisdom, doesn't link to random unknown sources, uses robust logical principles to present his case and is ready to accept correction from those who've actually spent some time thinking.

I apologize if I have misinterpreted you but tone is inherently difficult to convey in writing.

I certainly hope not, because I work hard on conveying the right tone, and I happen to be particularly good at it.

hackenslash wrote:I certainly hope not, because I work hard on conveying the right tone, and I happen to be particularly good at it.

May I use quote this and use in my signature?

Please do, although if you're going to provide the right context, it should read 'I certainly fucking hope not, because I work hard on conveying the right fucking tone, and I happen to be particularly knob-twangingly good at it'.

May I add:

I'm a twat, and in the immortal words of Eminem, tell these people something they don't know about me.

hackenslash wrote:
It appears that you think that philosophy answers questions. In reality it answers only one question namely is this the right
sort of question ? Providing answers is not what philosophy is about it is about analysing questions for utility. Philosophy is
in the business of teaching one how to think not what to think. As soon as you allow it to tell you what to think
you are doing it wrong. Philosophy is the art of ensuring the correct sort of logic is being applied to a situation

Is it acceptable in principle for philosophy to ask any question or should this be restricted to only those which you define as
the right sort ? Now how does one differentiate between these two categories ? So for example are questions which are non falsifiable also non philosophical ? Can you give an example of a valid philosophical question and an invalid one ? Philosophy is defined as the love of wisdom but what principles does wisdom have to adhere to ? So for example does it have to adhere to logic or reason or does it transcend that ? If it does then what is the definition of wisdom ? And is knowledge a sub set of it ? For is it true to say that wisdom is the ability to use knowledge for good reason ? If philosophy is the love of wisdom and science is the attainment of knowledge [ scientia meaning knowledge ] does this mean philosophy is a superior discipline to science ? As cannot logic and reason be equally as rigorous when employed as evidence and proof are ? And if not why not ?

surreptitious57 wrote:Philosophy is defined as the love of wisdom but what principles does wisdom have to adhere to ?

Why not ask something more precise than 'what constitutes wisdom', since all you will get about that are opinions? A lot of people are severely addicted to pondering 'wisdom' because there's a long tradition of wibble about it. Tradition is not out of the gate a good argument for anything. After that, your situation is pretty hopeless, because you'll be arguing to the consequences, and the inductive hypothesis only applies in mathematics.

surreptitious57 wrote:Is it acceptable in principle for philosophy to ask any question or should this be restricted to only those which you define as the right sort ?

Hello..! Is this thing on? The answer is right there in the bit you quoted.

Can you give an example of a valid philosophical question

Is this the right kind of question?

and an invalid one ?

Any other question.

Philosophy is defined as the love of wisdom

No, it really isn't. That's its etymological root, now how it's defined.

Give me an example of the right kind of question
What you gave is too general so be more specific
And also what is the real definition of philosophy

Are you having a fucking giraffe? The right kind of question will depend entirely on the area of enquiry. Philosophy is a discipline concerned with analysing questions for utility.

If you want more, feel free to persue my voluminous posts on the topic, because it isn't like I haven't covered this ad nauseum.

surreptitious57 wrote:Give me an example of the right kind of question
What you gave is too general so be more specific
And also what is the real definition of philosophy

Justify preferring data to anecdotes, or vice versa. There isn't a 'correct' answer, but a solid answer will contribute to the greater glory of RatSkep.

Here's an example of a lousy question:

leftrightleft wrote:Does the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) fail the falsifiability test of the scientific method?

See if you can argue against my opinion.

The trouble with anecdotes is that they can be used to justify some greater truth in the minds of those expressing them
And I do not like them for this reason and would never mistake them for actual truth. Data is a bit more robust but even
here one has be careful about using it to determine confirmation bias. I will only accept that which is demonstrably true
Sometimes things slip in under the radar so eternal vigilance and brutal rigour are required. Though no matter how much
one applies these principles there is still room for improvement so one cannot afford to become complacent. But I myself
find that I am more conditioned to simply hearing all points of view rather than formulating my own rigid philosophy. And
this I put down to realising that nothing really matters in the grand scheme of things now. Only while we are actually here

hackenslash wrote:Please do, although if you're going to provide the right context, it should read 'I certainly fucking hope not, because I work hard on conveying the right fucking tone, and I happen to be particularly knob-twangingly good at it'.

May I add:

I'm a twat, and in the immortal words of Eminem, tell these people something they don't know about me.

I dunno. It just seemed ironic to leave that as a closing statement in a post which you referred to lrl as a fucking genius, when clearly you meant he was knob-twangingly stupid. I thought it crossed the line.

NuclMan wrote:

hackenslash wrote:Please do, although if you're going to provide the right context, it should read 'I certainly fucking hope not, because I work hard on conveying the right fucking tone, and I happen to be particularly knob-twangingly good at it'.

May I add:

I'm a twat, and in the immortal words of Eminem, tell these people something they don't know about me.

I dunno. It just seemed ironic to leave that as a closing statement in a post which you referred to lrl as a fucking genius, when clearly you meant he was knob-twangingly stupid. I thought it crossed the line.

Communicatively or tonally? It was the right fucking tone and leaves little room for misinterpretation by anyone who isn't interpreting things with knob-twanging obtuseness. I think it's safe to assume that everyone here is a genius, because, after all, this is fucking rationalskepticism.org. Thus, when someone makes a stupid remark, we conclude that it was merely a mistake, and not any indication that the person making it is measurably stupid. Even after a poster makes a half-dozen knob-twangingly stupid mistakes in a row, we still may not conclude that person is stupid. Such a person may merely be confused. Even when repeated correction fails to lift the confusion, we may not conclude stupidity, but rather only that some sort of ideological commitment is impeding the proper assessment of facts. Our collective commitment to rational skepticism as, you know, a way of life precludes our interpreting ideological commitments as evidence in themselves of measurable stupidity. People are known to have dropped baseless ideological positions they held in the past. There may be a lingering confusion in concluding from the fact that one has, oneself, abandoned former unsupported ideological commitments that every person who appears to have unsupported ideological commitments can be persuaded by gentle dialog to drop them.

Well, actually, we can conclude anything we like, but there are some conclusions that are better left private.

Cito di Pense wrote:

NuclMan wrote:

hackenslash wrote:Please do, although if you're going to provide the right context, it should read 'I certainly fucking hope not, because I work hard on conveying the right fucking tone, and I happen to be particularly knob-twangingly good at it'.

May I add:

I'm a twat, and in the immortal words of Eminem, tell these people something they don't know about me.

I dunno. It just seemed ironic to leave that as a closing statement in a post which you referred to lrl as a fucking genius, when clearly you meant he was knob-twangingly stupid. I thought it crossed the line.

Communicatively or tonally? It was the right fucking tone and leaves little room for misinterpretation by anyone who isn't interpreting things with knob-twanging obtuseness. I think it's safe to assume that everyone here is a genius, because, after all, this is fucking rationalskepticism.org. Thus, when someone makes a stupid remark, we conclude that it was merely a mistake, and not any indication that the person making it is measurably stupid. Even after a poster makes a half-dozen knob-twangingly stupid mistakes in a row, we still may not conclude that person is stupid. Such a person may merely be confused. Even when repeated correction fails to lift the confusion, we may not conclude stupidity, but rather only that some sort of ideological commitment is impeding the proper assessment of facts. Our collective commitment to rational skepticism as, you know, a way of life precludes our interpreting ideological commitments as evidence in themselves of measurable stupidity. People are known to have dropped baseless ideological positions they held in the past. There may be a lingering confusion in concluding from the fact that one has, oneself, abandoned former unsupported ideological commitments that every person who appears to have unsupported ideological commitments can be persuaded by gentle dialog to drop them.

Well, actually, we can conclude anything we like, but there are some conclusions that are better left private.

Communicatively.

Tone is irrelevant - per the collective commitment to RS, as is concision and brevity apparently.

For me stupid pertains to what some one has said rather than to them themselves. Now while no one is stupid per
se they can still say stupid things and none of us are immune from that no matter how large our pre frontal cortex
may be. Some do not like it being employed in any context at all thinking it ableist. But your thoughts are not you
Saying someone is stupid is ableist. But saying they have said something stupid is not. So a subtle distinction there

We certainly should keep trying to figure it all out. Don't get me wrong here, I'm totally all for that. Take the science as far as humanly possible. But that's the thing! Does this mean we need to concede that there may be some aspects out there that might ultimately be indecipherable by mere organic, carbon-based wetware which has only evolved to a certain point?