Originally posted by Burning thought
I will when everyone else stops doing so. By claiming me as not understanding other peoples requests and thinking i should instead work on my own tact is condescending as well to those people.
That's just going to create an unending circle of douchebaggery. Oh wait...
Well considering neither is at the moment, obviously for me my side is most probable and for you, yours, otherwise neither would be arguing. Until a more accurate argument with evidence, lack of bias or fallacy is had there can be no final discussion, a few people whining accounts for nothing but whining, which is useless.
Its illogical because theres more in an argument than just number of assumptions and in the end, that "theory" cannot actually end a debate. Its also a fallacy in a debate.
Originally posted by Burning thought
Well considering neither is at the moment, obviously for me my side is most probable and for you, yours, otherwise neither would be arguing. Until a more accurate argument with evidence, lack of bias or fallacy is had there can be no final discussion, a few people whining accounts for nothing but whining, which is useless.Its illogical because theres more in an argument than just number of assumptions and in the end, that "theory" cannot actually end a debate. Its also a fallacy in a debate.
For example, I could believe completely that it's more probable I'm breathing orange marmalade as opposed to air, but that does not actually make it any more probable that I am, in fact, breathing orange marmalade.
It's not illogical; I'm currently focusing on what appears to be a core flaw in your logic. Isolating it from the subject at large to examine it exclusively.
Originally posted by General Kaliero
Well, no, you're wrong there. Relative viewpoints do not affect an outcome's absolute likelihood. You believe your side to be most probable, but that does not make your side truly more probable.For example, I could believe completely that it's more probable I'm breathing orange marmalade as opposed to air, but that does not actually make it any more probable that I am, in fact, breathing orange marmalade.
It's not illogical; I'm currently focusing on what appears to be a core flaw in your logic. Isolating it from the subject at large to examine it exclusively.
Ofcourse it does in this case, because this debate has two sides, both must agree before the argument falls, you dont agree with me, I dont agree with you etc etc and I didnt say its more probable generally, i belive its more probable myself, as it seems you do, because as I said, you wouldnt debate your side if you didnt agree with it.
How is that a flaw in logic? having a look at main subjects one at a time is the best way to get the truth, either way its irrelvent, what your proposing is a fallacy, number of opinions does not=truth over a lesser number.
-also, your logic is obviously flawed and broken, which shows why ime more likely to be the one on the winning argument, because so many people on your side have either no logic, or cannot explain it, instead they only have a gripe, your argument of assumptions falls to the same amount of assumptions on both sides 😉
You do not seem to comprehend what I'm saying. An objective situation has an absolute state, outside of any viewer's opinion or bias. Without any subjective viewpoint, a selected situation simply is. This is basic science.
Now then, it is possible to introduce subjective viewpoints to an objective situation. While the situation itself is static, subjective viewpoints are not, and are based on the viewers' perceptions. This is where fallacies come into play. If a viewer's perception is incorrect, then their viewpoint, being subjective to their perception, is also incorrect.
Probability theory then helps, in this case, to determine which subjective viewpoint is more closely aligned to the objective situation by assigning each viewpoint a relative likelihood based on objective observations and applied principles.
Therefore:
Objective situation: Many (the forum community at large) find an individual's (Burning thought) debating style to be irritating and wrong.
Subjective viewpoint 1: The many are incorrect in their perceptions of the individual's debating style, which is not truly irritating and is in fact correct and valid.
Subjective viewpoint 2: The many are correct, and the individual is incorrect in his perceptions of his own debating style.
Occam's Razor, as a principle of probability theory, here states that the subjective viewpoints may be assigned a level of probability based on the number of assumptions that must be made.
Viewpoint 1 requires a separate assumption for each individual among the many to be incorrect, and more assumptions related to the small likelihood of a large number of people being incorrect about the same thing in the same way.
Viewpoint 2 requires only one assumption; that the individual is incorrect in his thinking.
Therefore, logically, it is much more probable that you are wrong, as opposed to everybody else being wrong.
Originally posted by General Kaliero
You do not seem to comprehend what I'm saying. An objective situation has an absolute state, outside of any viewer's opinion or bias. Without any subjective viewpoint, a selected situation simply is. This is basic science.Now then, it is possible to introduce subjective viewpoints to an objective situation. While the situation itself is static, subjective viewpoints are not, and are based on the viewers' perceptions. This is where fallacies come into play. If a viewer's perception is incorrect, then their viewpoint, being subjective to their perception, is also incorrect.
Probability theory then helps, in this case, to determine which subjective viewpoint is more closely aligned to the objective situation by assigning each viewpoint a relative likelihood based on objective observations and applied principles.
Therefore:
Objective situation: Many (the forum community at large) find an individual's (Burning thought) debating style to be irritating and wrong.
Subjective viewpoint 1: The many are incorrect in their perceptions of the individual's debating style, which is not truly irritating and is in fact correct and valid.
Subjective viewpoint 2: The many are correct, and the individual is incorrect in his perceptions of his own debating style.Occam's Razor, as a principle of probability theory, here states that the subjective viewpoints may be assigned a level of probability based on the number of assumptions that must be made.
Viewpoint 1 requires a separate assumption for each individual among the many to be incorrect, and more assumptions related to the small likelihood of a large number of people being incorrect about the same thing in the same way.
Viewpoint 2 requires only one assumption; that the individual is incorrect in his thinking.
Therefore, logically, it is much more probable that you are wrong, as opposed to everybody else being wrong.
Do you know whats really funny, what makes me feel more intelligent than you? and likewise thinkers...
That despite having thought out up this irrelevancy anyway just to try and use it against me, its useless, because not only is it as i said irrelevant to finding an actual truth in an argument but your completely wrong and it does not help you...and here is why:
Viewpoint 2 requires each of those in this viewpoint to give an individual assumption, so each of you in Viewpoint 2 have to assume I am wrong, just as i would have to assume in Viewpoint 1, each of you are wrong....it works both ways 🙄 silly billy 😛
You will still be left with a fairly big fallacy, that makes no sense in this argument, if 10 school kids who had not done a day of science in their life and walked up to a physics professor and told him he was wrong about whatever theory he brought up, according to your logic, logically, the science professor is incorrect.....foolish idea anyway regardless of how wrong you are.
Originally posted by Burning thoughtActually he is, mostly, correct. Assuming we don't know anything about the people involved in this experiment, lets say they are randomly chosen, then 50 of them saying that something is one way, and one of them saying that it is the other, does objectively set the probability against that one person. That's just how it works. It doesn't mean the person is necessarily wrong, though, just an indication. Has nothing to with actual proof.
yes GK was wrong, in his own logic and reasoning for it. His little probability theory that makes no sense in this instance works both ways, thats how his one works, but he did not think of that 😉
Originally posted by Ridley_Prime
That's... kinda hard for me to answer. mmm In some ways yes, and in other ways no, but mostly no.Nice Scorpion sig. 😛 Definitely puts the one I used to use to shame. =(
Originally posted by NemeBro
None of your Goddamn business. estahuhI think you will find when addressing scum like Cosmic Cube I am quite serious.
Oh, and yeah, nice Scorpion sig. Pretty sweet.
Thank you, thank you, your all too kind 😄
And by the way, you never answered my question.
Originally posted by Burning thought
Do you know whats really funny, what makes me feel more intelligent than you? and likewise thinkers...That despite having thought out up this irrelevancy anyway just to try and use it against me, its useless, because not only is it as i said irrelevant to finding an actual truth in an argument but your completely wrong and it does not help you...and here is why:
Viewpoint 2 requires each of those in this viewpoint to give an [b]individual
assumption, so each of you in Viewpoint 2 have to assume I am wrong, just as i would have to assume in Viewpoint 1, each of you are wrong....it works both ways 🙄 silly billy 😛You will still be left with a fairly big fallacy, that makes no sense in this argument, if 10 school kids who had not done a day of science in their life and walked up to a physics professor and told him he was wrong about whatever theory he brought up, according to your logic, logically, the science professor is incorrect.....foolish idea anyway regardless of how wrong you are. [/B]
The only real problem you may have is that your too stubborn; you dont know when to admit when your wrong, maybe on a few little things here and there but i doubt you would concede in an actual arguement, despite how wrong you may be. Other than that, your perfectly normal.
Not by his theory it doesnt, he claimed that just because there are 50 (in your example) people against me, that I would have to make 50 assumptions that those people are wrong, well it works both ways, so he is wrong, they all have to make 50 assumptions I am wrong. So....he is wrong...
Add your bit on the end about it not being actual proof and his argument is not only wrong, its useless.
Using number of people to determine the truth in an argument is also the popularity fallacy.
A wrong, useless and a fallacy.....
One argument smashed, so I hope GK has a better one.
Originally posted by Burning thoughtI think GK just claimed what I just pointed out there.
Not by his theory it doesnt, he claimed that just because there are 50 (in your example) people against me, that I would have to make 50 assumptions that those people are wrong, well it works both ways, so he is wrong, they all have to make 50 assumptions I am wrong. So....he is wrong...Add your bit on the end about it not being actual proof and his argument is not only wrong, its useless.
Using number of people to determine the truth in an argument is also the popularity fallacy.
A wrong, useless and a fallacy.....
One argument smashed, so I hope GK has a better one.
You are just making one assumption, the others 50 of them altogether make each one, too. So there are 50 assumptions saying one thing and one saying another.
Now, if he said that "because 50 people say you are wrong, you are wrong", you'd be right about quoting fallacies. But he was just illuminating the tool of Occam's Razor, I believe, and stating that, though it is not logical proof, it is an indication one could, and should perhaps, consider.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I think GK just claimed what I just pointed out there.You are just making one assumption, the others 50 of them altogether make each one, too. So there are 50 assumptions saying one thing and one saying another.
Now, if he said that "because 50 people say you are wrong, you are wrong", you'd be right about quoting fallacies. But he was just illuminating the tool of Occam's Razor, I believe, and stating that, though it is not logical proof, it is an indication one could, and should perhaps, consider.
It was his entire argument, if he was just pulling out this random theory just to show me it then I am going to be very amused, youve prob given him a back entrance to escape from admitting he was wrong about trying to use it against me.
GK was trying to claim that just because of assumptions, there are more assumptions that I am making, than they are, thing is this is untrue as I pointed out, see his point:
Originally posted by General KalieroOccam's Razor, as a principle of probability theory, here states that the subjective viewpoints may be assigned a level of probability based on the number of assumptions that must be made
Viewpoint 1 requires a separate assumption for each individual among the many to be incorrect, and more assumptions related to the small likelihood of a large number of people being incorrect about the same thing in the same way.
Viewpoint 2 requires only one assumption; that the individual is incorrect in his thinking.
Therefore, logically, it is much more probable that you are wrong, as opposed to everybody else being wrong.
He is trying to use amount of assumptions, not the amount of people....
Thing is...both in your example, have 50 assumptions each, 50 that the 50 people are wrong from me, 50 that ime wrong from them.
Originally posted by k1Lla441The last example doesnt really make sense, the people who are assuming that your arguing and logic is flawed (i do not agree;it doesnt bother me at all) are not the equivalent to school kids who dont know anything. The people who are accusing you of this are people, for the most part, who know what there talking about.
The only real problem you may have is that your too stubborn; you dont know when to admit when your wrong, maybe on a few little things here and there but i doubt you would concede in an actual arguement, despite how wrong you may be. Other than that, your perfectly normal.
It makes complete sense because regardless of this situation, it sheds light on the fact that even if GK was right about his little probability theory and it worked for him, its irrelvent because it cannot shed light on facts. And now your just assuming.
How wrong I am is an opinion, not a fact, I could be perfectly right, just because a majority disagree would not change this.