Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Khloe]

It's a general discussion topic about slavery in New Eden. That's what it's about.

[Casiella]

Yes, but nobody understands what the hell Publius is saying...

Also, I'll just leave this here.

[Merdaneth]

Yes, but nobody understands what the hell Publius is saying...

Publius seemed to be making a literal brain dump, and words where irritatingly in his way.

[Seriphyn]

Publius is NNS of English.

[Publius Valerius]

Yes, but nobody understands what the hell Publius is saying...

Publius seemed to be making a literal brain dump, and words where irritatingly in his way.

Seriphyn is right.... Im not a NNS english speaker..... and like I said here:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1072234#post1072234
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1072548#post1072548


"No problem..... (and yes it isnt my first language). But you can hate on it or on me P. It is the internet and we are free P.... And most of all: you are not be the first english speaker which pointed that out... (and I have no problem with it, it helps me actually):p."






So If you have any questions ask...... if you have and falzification points to bring, bring them.... I have no problem with it. cut dont bring something like: 2+3=6 or in Gottis case..... something out of thin air..... like I said.... I will not go in a FOX NEWS diskussuion.

So now back.... to my "literal brain dump, and words where irritatingly in his way." I see some people have still a problem with my example.... was really hard. So I explain.



One day there was a Men ...his Name was Wyke. He had made in the officiall Forum a comment. Another player had made after that his comment..... Like we know it form the internet.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=49608

He made some comments and I made some comments. Her are my:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=561575#post561575
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=561500#post561500

And one day a little girl walks in that topic and writes:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=563666#post563666
"Right, uh... first off, the FP is entirely made up of canon, official lore.

What you, Publius and a bunch of other people write? That isn't canon. The moment you start reinterpreting or extrapolating from the information available to us from official sources, however reasonable and realistic it may seem, you are still making it up and pulling it out of your ass. Only when CCP staff come along, look at it, and then find a way to wedge it into the existing canon that makes sense and fits with their master plan, does your stuff become canon.

There's a little disclaimer on the wiki when you write posts, by the way - it says something along the lines of "don't submit anything if you don't want it to potentially be edited mercilessly by others." It seems that you missed it.

Second, there was a good cause for your stuff to be moved/deleted: it didn't fit in with what CCP had written. Get over yourself, dude, and stop taking this so personally."

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=564713#post564713
"Publius, my post wasn't directed at you. Hell, you were only mentioned as an example of someone who writes a lot of good stuff, some of which isn't canon. I didn't accuse you of saying it was at all - so the one putting words in someone else's mouth is you, not me.

The fiction portal isn't for player-written stuff that is extrapolated or based on established PF. It's for stuff that is established PF, as determined by CCP and no-one else. Wyke appears to be having a misunderstanding with either that, or the fact that as Seri wrote while I was at dinner, we all knew this was coming.

Contributing to the wiki is great. It's awesome that there are people actively working to keep things neat and organized and filling in holes - but again, as Seri said, that shouldn't be our job. It's CCP's job, because they're the ones who actually know the wheat from the chaff, not us.

CCP told us a year ago that they were finally going to devote time and people to the task - they've finally gotten the first round of the end product finished and put it out for us to see. This just means that a ton of the stuff players have done, is going to be tossed aside while CCP decides whether it fits in with their master plan or not.

It doesn't mean people need to get all up in arms about it, as Wyke has done.

Jowen: I would expect as much, myself - with the amount of time and effort CCP has put into the FP, I'm willing to forgive some typos and other small mistakes like that, given the massive amount of information that's been dumped onto our laps everywhere else."

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=565277#post565277
"Because as I stated further down in that post, they've decided it fits in with their "master plan" for the universe. What's wrong with that?

I don't understand what the hell people are up in arms over.

There's a stupidly large amount of stuff to sift through before player-written stuff even enters into the equation. If people expected CCP to do it all in one go, including the process of vetting the player-written stuff that suits their vision, they should probably get their heads out of the clouds and their feet back on the ground.

It's one thing to create a fluff holovid series like Ken did with CPF Blue (see: Naga description), and another entirely to (using Publius' work as an example, again) slap together a huge diagram of how the Amarrian government is organized, or something similar for a megacorporation. The former is unobtrusive and doesn't affect anyone, really. It's a "yes, and..." to borrow the improv phrase. The latter isn't. That affects a ******* huge number of people. That takes time for CCP to go through and verify that it meshes with what they have already. Time for them to, if it does, go through it and clean it up, and tweak it as necessary to make it perfect.

Stuff that potentially falls in the latter category is a lot less likely to be pulled in its entirety on the first go. That doesn't mean that it won't at all - it very well might be in small manageable pieces that don't conflict with CCP's vision - but it'll take a lot longer to be vetted than a holovid series. Because really, that **** rots your brain. Didn't your mother ever tell you that?"

So know lets get this comment in a logical-deductiv order....we are here not on FOX-News (so no illoical-inductiv stuff). So we all know syllogism is. As example I can bring:
All men are mortal. (Mayor Premise)
All Greeks are men. (Minor Premise)
All Greeks are mortal


We all know what deductiv is?... Deductive reasoning, also called deductive logic, is the process of reasoning from one or more general statements regarding what is known to reach a logically certain conclusion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning


So he.... Morwen had.... I is conclusion that:
* Publius stuff infuence a shit load of people. "That affects a ******* huge number of people". Can be found here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=565641#post565641

I have try to rework how, he - Morwen - comes to his conclusion.


So back again. .. I go from a global law.... an axiom or mayor premise (you can call like love,,, I call it Gesetz, as had Popper don it).... down to a minor premise and come than to an conclusion..... thats its call deductiv....
So in your case it is:
* Only CCP Primefiction influence players in their RP. So your conlusion should be:
* Publius stuff infuence a shit load of people.

But there is something missing or?.... Yes it is... a minor premise.... do go sown from the a global law to the conclusion.....

So that Morwens.... syllogism works.... he needs this minor premise:
* Publius stuff is CCP Primefiction.
Or it will be illogical inductiv. Thats why I had again and again said... here:
That my shit isnt canon

Or in Popper term.... Y= My stuff... X= Canon.... so my stuff is "ungleiche Menge"/different quantities of X (see it as two circle which never touch each other)..... And I never said something else.... get it?
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=564115#post564115
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=565641#post565641
To falsify his syllogism... or that syllogism which had should use, but hadnt




So now to the syllogism he had use:
* Only CCP Primefiction influence players in their RP.
* Publius stuff isnt CCP Primefiction.
* Publius stuff infuence a shit load of people.

The minor premise is now change.... why because of his comment that:
"What you, Publius and a bunch of other people write? That isn't canon." here:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=563666#post563666





So.... Long Story... short.... you can see that when I sturctur his comments... and bring them down to a gesetz/law..... that t isnt bad or nazi... or anti-american.... it isnt something bad to use Popper or postivistic ideas.... and isnt bad to stop a FOX-News discussion

So after I have said it isnt bad... now back to my larger point. As you see, there is a porblem I his argumention line. In case A (with the minor premise: Publius stuff is CCP Primefiction.), can it be falzify with my comment and my constribution history... that I dont write canon. As for case B (with the minor premise: Publius stuff isnt CCP Primefiction.), pur logical thinking can falzify his argumention.


And again. I dont say my stuff is the final word. It stand so long until you (Merdaneth) falsify it. And about falzifaction Im not hard..... yu can bring a gestz or quote from which person you like....

I had ones qoute Hartmut Esser: Institutionen handeln nicht nur menschen in Institutionen. Institutions dont act, only people in institutions. To falzify a Idea, which where had to oposite as axiom. By the way like I said before Im not the soziologie guy... more the VWL. But beack to the topic: How does it come, I mean such errors? Like I said some time before.... many scholars.... forget that... and go for an extrem theory which sells good.
http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3140.msg47524#msg47524




By the way great vid: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html
























by the way nice vid (Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions)

[Casiella]

I'm not hating on you at all. I just think your apparent pride in having "refuted" an argument cannot be validated if nobody understood you - not because your reasoning was over our collective head but because we literally cannot parse your posts.

To be perfectly honest, what little I could make out seemed like it could be moderated if I understood it properly, but I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt in cases like this. I try not to be an ass all the time.

[Publius Valerius]

I'm not hating on you at all. I just think your apparent pride in having "refuted" an argument cannot be validated if nobody understood you - not because your reasoning was over our collective head but because we literally cannot parse your posts.

To be perfectly honest, what little I could make out seemed like it could be moderated if I understood it properly, but I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt in cases like this. I try not to be an ass all the time.

I have try to rework it..... see post before.... your ghost edit was faster


Edit: If there is any question.... ask.... I have no problem, with that... and will try to show.... which are were the errors... from Gotti and and some others.... like I said... If there is any misunderstanding... or wrong use of words. Just post it. I can just get better from it, I cant get better on nothing or hot air . So logical criticism is always welcome.

Yes, but nobody understands what the hell Publius is saying...

Publius seemed to be making a literal brain dump, and words where irritatingly in his way.

Like I said you can falzify me any time

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

When you have done it.... than go tru this topic.... and you will see WHY I made the old post in the first place: http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3484.msg55922#msg55922

I hadnt made it without a reason.

[Merdaneth]

By the way great vid: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html

Actually, this is a typical example to me of someone claiming a lot of pure (and falsifiable) nonsense.

A lot of emotional argumentation, lots of false conclusions.

The issue with morality is a lack of clearly defined goals/boundaries. If people disagree about the goals or fail to define goals properly, they will obviously disagree about the methods to reach those goals. Regardless of there are multiple ways to reach those goals (some may more optimal than others).

That is why Sam isn't a good physicist (or perhaps a chess player), it is because the problems and goals of physics and chess are clearly defined, and his answer are verifiably worse than other answers.

I think science can certainly have answers to question of morality, but Sam is a very poor scientist in that regard.

Insofar the fictional world of EVE goes, its rather simple: those who convince more people of their point of view are right. There are those that give more emphasis to authority (CCP), those who give prefer logic and internal consistency and those who prefer maximum expressive space (and perhaps other things) on a continuum.

I don't care much about authority for example, and my claim is that you can play this game perfectly without reading much PF. In fact, it is my claim that the majority of the players (90%+) read less than 1% of the available prime fiction and they have no problem at all playing. The content of the debate your example is largely meaningless to me as a result.

As far as slavery is concerned, I don't think we can have a 'right' answer unless we define what is right first (define a goal). But we can talk about how different definitions and perceptions of slavery affects us and our play. We are seeing certain patterns and encounter common obstacles which seem to obstruct that not yet clearly defined by somewhat visible common goal. That is what I find interesting to talk about.






























by the way nice vid (Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions)
[/quote]

[Publius Valerius]

The content of the debate your example is largely meaningless to me as a result.

thats why I said an example .... see here:

"So back to this thread: Like I mention before I start. I will try to make really ...really, really, really easy example with a discussion which I had with Morwen Lagann."

http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3484.msg55922#msg55922


And as I see in your post.... It had work. You have learned something... or at least try to think outside of the methotic of the how this discussion had work before my hate rant .

Now..... the next step my friend.

As far as slavery is concerned, I don't think we can have a 'right' answer unless we define what is right first (define a goal). But we can talk about how different definitions and perceptions of slavery affects us and our play. We are seeing certain patterns and encounter common obstacles which seem to obstruct that not yet clearly defined by somewhat visible common goal. That is what I find interesting to talk about.

See.... that what I have said here:

"My problem is that people..... forget how that shit works.... first you have a topic... than you define Slavery and other improtant subjects..... than you make your theory which you like to test*....than you look for errors in the theory.... than you look in the RL..... I know I know.... "This Publius and his nazi Popper stuff."

http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3484.msg55922#msg55922

And have try to split even the topic see here:
http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3484.msg55923#msg55923



See If you read my comments.... you arent losing something.... we all get something



"So for know... we have two options:

1.) I come ones a week .... laugh my ass of... like on a scripted realiyt TV series.... where you feel always superior as the people which are in. And I can Roast one or two..... Option one would be great for me.

2.) Start to think logical deductiv about this topic. Come up with an theory and in the end (last step), test this thoery white the information we have in the CCP lore. Option Two would be great for me and you."

Insofar the fictional world of EVE goes, its rather simple: those who convince more people of their point of view are right. There are those that give more emphasis to authority (CCP), those who give prefer logic and internal consistency and those who prefer maximum expressive space (and perhaps other things) on a continuum.

I don't care much about authority for example, and my claim is that you can play this game perfectly without reading much PF. In fact, it is my claim that the majority of the players (90%+) read less than 1% of the available prime fiction and they have no problem at all playing. The content of the debate your example is largely meaningless to me as a result.

And when you can re-write it in a law (If -> than.  the larger -> the more, some sort of correlation). I jizzle my pants.... Thats the way I like/love..... If you are in a run. I will give 300 Mio Isk again.... for everyone. Which goes to this topic.... and find any illogical inductiv arguments.

A lot of emotional argumentation, lots of false conclusions.

You have understand..... My work is done .... You will find now his topic as I have. And maybe even some day you are the guy.... which slaps with Popper around.



As for others ... ehm... to see the errors of some posts in this topic... could be for some hard.... so If someone needs it... or will.... I can step to next level, and explain my Seriphyn example. About "false/overstreach" premises and which impact it can have in conclusions of theorys. Baby steps as I call it

[Nicoletta Mithra]

Publius,

the problem with Popper is, though, that he didn't get it right either. His naive falsificationism has been overhauled at least since Lakatos and Kuhn. Also, we're not really engaging in science here, which Popper tried to describe normatively.

Instead we're engaging in debate, something that follows quite distinct processes from scientific research. Sure, you've a valid point if you ask for clearly structured arguments that are logically sound. But, well, it's something you can't expect from people who haven't had a course in logic (preferrably philosophical logic, I think as mathematical logic rarely teaches how to do logic in your mother tongue as it focuses on the formal aspects).

The important point in a debate - outside of the philosophical institutes of academia - is that every opinion has to be taken seriously. The principle of charity should be applied.

Slapping people with Popperian positivistic falsificationism - which, as I pointed out above has been, ironically, falsified in philosophy of science in it's naive form at least - doesn't help either way. Insisting on using his model of scientific research for structuring a debate is comitting a category error.


That said:

Merdaneth is right in regard to Sam Harris' vid. He defines the ethical values in purely materialistic, scientific terms and then starts to argue that the questions about ethical values are answerable by science. This, clearly, is a petitio principii. I think it also shows that he is missing something that is quite important about ethical values.

So, though I agree with him that science can provide knowledge that is needed to answer some ethical questions and is therefore an important factor in ethics, I don't see him showing in the least that science is sufficient to answer those questions. And then, Confucius already said "all knowledge is ethical knowledge". Aristotle had it in his Nicomachean Ethics, too.

It's really nothing new and Sam Harris emotional talk and advertisement for the supremacy of science isn't what I'd recommend to people if they'd want to learn about what science can contribute to ethics.

[Publius Valerius]

It's really nothing new and Sam Harris emotional talk and advertisement for the supremacy of science isn't what I'd recommend to people if they'd want to learn about what science can contribute to ethics.

I agree.... but for people how havent seen him. It could be intressting.

Publius,

the problem with Popper is, though, that he didn't get it right either. His naive falsificationism has been overhauled at least since Lakatos and Kuhn. Also, we're not really engaging in science here, which Popper tried to describe normatively.

overhauled: No. I think a miss understanding was that how can I tell..., the Gewichtigung/weight which had Lakaros give to Poppers postivistic view (which he had in some parts of his modles). Im on this point (postivisms) more on the M. Friedman site (as VWLer/Economics not surpising ).... which had had wrote (in his tree example)... that is more or less a tool to get theorys working (which is my goal here, to get some stuff working.
http://library.northsouth.edu/Upload/THE%20PHILOSOPHY%20OF%20ECONOMICS.pdf#page=154

So Lakaros point which is almost (Constructvitsic):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivist_epistemology

"There are no pure data, which consist only of observation. Any statement containing theory, and any observation is only possible because it is based on a theory."

Would I come with Friedmans tree example: "Let us turn now to another example, this time a constructed one designed to be an analogue of many hypotheses in the social sciences. Consider the density of leaves around a tree. I suggest the hypothesis that the leaves are positioned as if each leaf deliberately sought to maximize the amount of sunlight it receives, given the position of its neighbors, as if it knew the physical laws determining the amount of sunlight that would be received in various positions and could move rapidly or instantaneously from any one position to any other desired and unoccupied position. 14 Now some of the more obvious implications of this hypothesis are clearly consistent with experience: for example, leaves are in general denser on the south than on the north side of trees but, as the hypothesis implies, less so or not at all on the northern slope of a hill or when the south side of the trees is shaded in some other way. Is the hypothesis rendered unacceptable or invalid because, so far as we know, leaves do not “deliberate” or consciously “seek,” have not been to school and learned the relevant laws of science or the mathematics required to calculate the “optimum” position, and cannot move from position to position? Clearly, none of these contradictions of the hypothesis is vitally relevant; the phenomena involved are not within the “class of phenomena the hypothesis is designed to explain”; the hypothesis does not assert that leaves do these things but only that their density is the same as if they did. Despite the apparent falsity of the “assumptions” of the hypothesis, it has great plausibility because of the conformity of its implications with observation. We are inclined to “explain” its validity on the ground that sunlight contributes to the growth of leaves and that hence leaves will grow denser or more putative leaves survive where there is more sun, so the result achieved by purely passive adaptation to external circumstances is the same as the result that would be achieved by deliberate accommodation to them. This alternative hypothesis is more attractive than the constructed hypothesis not because its “assumptions” are more “realistic” but rather because it is part of a more general theory that applies to a wider variety of phenomena, of which the position of leaves around a tree is a special case, has more implications capable of being contradicted, and has failed to be contradicted under a wider variety of circumstances. The direct evidence for the growth of leaves is in this way strengthened by the indirect evidence from the other phenomena to which the more general theory applies.

The constructed hypothesis is presumably valid, that is, yields “sufficiently” accurate predictions about the density of leaves, only for a particular class of circumstances. I do not know what these circumstances are or how to define them. It seems obvious, however, that in this example the “assumptions” of the theory will play no part in specifying them: the kind of tree, the character of the soil, etc., are the types of variables that are likely to define its range of validity, not the ability of the leaves to do complicated mathematics or to move from place to place." etc....

Instead we're engaging in debate, something that follows quite distinct processes from scientific research. Sure, you've a valid point if you ask for clearly structured arguments that are logically sound. But, well, it's something you can't expect from people who haven't had a course in logic (preferrably philosophical logic, I think as mathematical logic rarely teaches how to do logic in your mother tongue as it focuses on the formal aspects).

The important point in a debate - outside of the philosophical institutes of academia - is that every opinion has to be taken seriously. The principle of charity should be applied.

Slapping people with Popperian positivistic falsificationism - which, as I pointed out above has been, ironically, falsified in philosophy of science in it's naive form at least - doesn't help either way. Insisting on using his model of scientific research for structuring a debate is comitting a category error.

Thats is the error... I see.... just look beyond page 7.... I get tickling in my skin; if I read that stuff. Some reasoning, some postivitims (so that we dont get some culturell realtisms debate), and some Popper arnt hurtful.... in the oposit even. It will just help this discussion.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

Friedman's tree example is theory laden. It assumes a lot of things: That leafs of trees are used for photosynthesis, that optimal sunlight exposition is 'sought' after for this process, the mathematics that one needs to predict optimal leaf density at positions etc.pp.

Also, there are many problems with naive falsificationism beyond what Lakatos has been hinting at. Among other things, that science simply isn't done like Popper would've liked it to be done in his theory. If you take a look at the state of the field of philosophy of science, you'd notice that Popper is simply outdated for several good reasons. That he's playing a role, still, is more or less caused by the fact that the newer theories of scientific process haven't been absorbed into the other disciplines.

I've been taught in my scientific studies that Popper is the height of how science has to be done. The physicist at the university already knew it's outdated. Having had philosophy as a secondary subject, I learned how outdated Popper is. Popper is, the way he himself envisioned his falsificationism, practically as dead as Popper himself or Friedman as well - some people just didn't take notice of that, yet.

Insisting on Popper won't lead that far. It is, after all a debate, not even an exercise of or attempt at scientific explanation. Hauling Popper as an absolute authority against someone who's taking the position of cultural relativism doesn't help at all. It won't convince anybody of anything. It's not even a good argument, it's a fallacy. If your skin tickles, than that's because you subscribe to Poppers doctrine, not because you're right and the cultural relativist is wrong without further qualification. You'd have to argue why cultural relativism is wrong, not hammering Popper around and calling "U r doin' it rong!"

Also, that aside: As I already said, Popper tries to give a model of how science should be done. We aren't doing science here. So, applying Popper here is just misapplying his theories. Arguments in debates aren't scientific theories/explanations. Simple as that.

One can't expect from people having a debate on a forum on internetspaceships that they first take a course in classical logic and some other subjects before they are allowed to participate. Sure, I agree that structuring ones arguments and sound logic are a great boon in any debate. (Popper and positivism aren't, in my book, a necessary and not even particularly helpful area of knowledge for that, though.) But being a good old German battleship about that doesn't help here. People won't develop skills in logics because of your rant here. Best thing you'll get is that people who already have those skills and forgot to apply them will get to that. One doesn't need a rant for that, though. A polite reminder is usually enough.

[Publius Valerius]

Friedman's tree example is theory laden. It assumes a lot of things: That leafs of trees are used for photosynthesis, that optimal sunlight exposition is 'sought' after for this process, the mathematics that one needs to predict optimal leaf density at positions etc.pp.

Also, there are many problems with naive falsificationism beyond what Lakatos has been hinting at. Among other things, that science simply isn't done like Popper would've liked it to be done in his theory. If you take a look at the state of the field of philosophy of science, you'd notice that Popper is simply outdated for several good reasons. That he's playing a role, still, is more or less caused by the fact that the newer theories of scientific process haven't been absorbed into the other disciplines.

And there is one problem..... what you call "naive falsificationism" or Lakatos and Kuhn as done. I would say isnt a falzifacation or overhaul of science. It is just a contructivistist model which stays next the Popper or the positivmus etc.... About outdate I would say the opposit. My girlfriend has study physics and she is and as second subject theoretic mathematic. There you learn how to work in a world without full infomation.... Which is the mainy anti-point of positivsm critque. So if you write is outdate. Which is your outlook? I mean whats your examples. I mean the contructivisc science which you proposal (as modern, post-Popper) is actually totally out of left field. This can be seen in physics. Stephan Hawkings and Mias had works on the topic of wissenschaftliche Beweise bei restrikten infromation/scientific evidence with restricted information (will come with the exact title the next days).

But like I said...Im always for any falcifaction. So If you have a work (not just words) to throw had me it would be great.... To see this new contructicstic world.

Insisting on Popper won't lead that far. It is, after all a debate, not even an exercise of or attempt at scientific explanation. Hauling Popper as an absolute authority against someone who's taking the position of cultural relativism doesn't help at all. It won't convince anybody of anything. It's not even a good argument, it's a fallacy. If your skin tickles, than that's because you subscribe to Poppers doctrine, not because you're right and the cultural relativist is wrong without further qualification. You'd have to argue why cultural relativism is wrong, not hammering Popper around and calling "U r doin' it rong!"

As if you read.... "Some reasoning, some postivitims (so that we dont get some culturell realtisms debate),": So it is the positivms, which stand as point.
http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3484.msg56355#msg56355

And why Im doing this? Is a question you can answer.

Friedman's tree example is theory laden. It assumes a lot of things: That leafs of trees are used for photosynthesis, that optimal sunlight exposition is 'sought' after for this process, the mathematics that one needs to predict optimal leaf density at positions etc.pp.

Oh...see.... He had a larger point. Like I said. See it as tool, which can fix things. Thats his approach to the positivism. Many constructivistc scholar (like ours mention before). Have a always critque the positivms of his "welt sehen"/world seeing. He say more or less that it doesnt matter as long, you can formulate a hyptheses (of course the book is longer than my two copy past lines).

Insisting on Popper won't lead that far. It is, after all a debate, not even an exercise of or attempt at scientific explanation. Hauling Popper as an absolute authority against someone who's taking the position of cultural relativism doesn't help at all. It won't convince anybody of anything. It's not even a good argument, it's a fallacy. If your skin tickles, than that's because you subscribe to Poppers doctrine, not because you're right and the cultural relativist is wrong without further qualification. You'd have to argue why cultural relativism is wrong, not hammering Popper around and calling "U r doin' it rong!

Arrrg...Dude... what I wrote always.... read all the stuff...all the links which I give all the books... which I link.

so back what I have I wrote:
http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3484.msg55922#msg55922

"My problem is that people..... forget how that shit works.... first you have a topic... than you define Slavery and other improtant subjects..... than you make your theory which you like to test*....than you look for errors in the theory.... than you look in the RL..... I know I know.... "This Publius and his nazi Popper stuff. [...]*this theory which you like to test.... We all know, that all theorys should be logical and deductiv (not like FOX-News like). It means you have a global "law"... the same like in a the deductive-nomological theory (with your explanandum and explans)...."

See.... Popper is just the start.... that people understand where I come from. The next point when we all agree that we make Postivistic science. That we define the words. We make our theory logical and deductiv (and falsifiable).

See... as you can see on Morwen comments I can make a nothing out of it. Like I already said. He could also wrote "I love Hamburgers." It would make the same sence. Thats is my critque.

Again... It isnt just Popper. It isnt just the Postivisms. It is the whole package. And agian my offer still stands. When Im back eveyone which shows the errors of the comments (page 7-13). Of some people gets 300 Mio isk. So again I repeat so that it gets understand. You see an logical error in a argumention (which I already can see 4). The post them here. So that this discussion moves on. A discussion on 100 pages, about the same topic and with the same logical errors is just.....

I hope you can see my greater point which I try to make white the first post. And you can be one of the lucky people which gets the 300 Mio. And like I said it easy to get. Read some comments, and find out "ehm, I think, the argumention isnt logical"; and get the money.

One can't expect from people having a debate on a forum on internetspaceships that they first take a course in classical logic and some other subjects before they are allowed to participate. Sure, I agree that structuring ones arguments and sound logic are a great boon in any debate. (Popper and positivism aren't, in my book, a necessary and not even particularly helpful area of knowledge for that, though.) But being a good old German battleship about that doesn't help here. People won't develop skills in logics because of your rant here. Best thing you'll get is that people who already have those skills and forgot to apply them will get to that. One doesn't need a rant for that, though. A polite reminder is usually enough.

See. I think Battleship had help more. I know my folks. So Im first surpirse that nobody, had come around the corner and said..."Dude, Popper is a nazi".

So as a veteran on this, I think Battleship can help and has help. But that is a style question and doesnt change the content. I could be friendly (but my LA friendly mask on, and lie to people); but It would change the problem which this thread had face since page ~7. If I say it nice, would it change this reality, of course not.

People won't develop skills in logics because of your rant here. Best thing you'll get is that people who already have those skills and forgot to apply them will get to that. One doesn't need a rant for that, though. A polite reminder is usually enough.

So many cases in which it had work . So many. But like I already said. It is a question of style not content. I talk about content all day long and as you see; I will answer every content question as you like or wish.

I've been taught in my scientific studies that Popper is the height of how science has to be done. The physicist at the university already knew it's outdated. Having had philosophy as a secondary subject, I learned how outdated Popper is. Popper is, the way he himself envisioned his falsificationism, practically as dead as Popper himself or Friedman as well - some people just didn't take notice of that, yet.

Like I already said. Throw some books at me. But plz outside of the construvtistc science. Im as you had already saw, not a huge fan of it. I dont say like Mia that it isnt science. But I have large doubts about Lakatos model of science (and not just the constructivsitc ideas).










Edit: totally forgot the one question. "You'd have to argue why cultural relativism is wrong, not hammering Popper around and calling "U r doin' it rong!"
Now bcak.... to that I let stand the postivism against it....so the question would be: "You'd have to argue why cultural relativism is wrong, not hammering postivisms around and calling "U r doin' it rong!"

As you and all other know.... Positivism is a philosophy of science based on the view that in the social as well as natural sciences, data derived from sensory experience, and logical and mathematical treatments of such data, are together the exclusive source of all authoritative knowledge. As it nicely stands in the wiki page. What does it mean? It means that I belive we life in a world with gesetzen/laws. Science has the task to find those laws; like Gossens laws. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gossen%27s_laws. The way to find those laws is a hard ones... and had many discussions over the years (Poppers task was more or less a "empiristisches Sinnkriterium zu formulieren" with ot he try to get away from a positvistic view.. .... Im way out of field now).
So back to Positivms.... as a world in there we CAN find those laws without useing normative science.

The cultural relativism trys to avoid own world view on analyse of another culture. So you my ask what is the problem? The problem is that the postivism already avoids this point. It like saying the samething twice.... It is almost in the topic use tautlogical (it isnt equal, thats way it is just almost ). As an example or out cry to use postivistic methods. As can be seen here:
http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3484.msg55816#msg55816
There are others too... im to lazy to search.

So know.... we know we can skip all the "culturell relatisms debate; if we just use a postivistic model in the first place. We avoide this way any meaning less discussion about is there any "laws", "knowledge", "views" be outside of the own world view. As it done in the constructivsm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivist_epistemology

Thats why I wrote "Some reasoning, some positivism (so that we dont get some culturell realtisms debate),"

[Publius Valerius]

If your skin tickles, than that's because you subscribe to Poppers doctrine, not because you're right and the cultural relativist is wrong without further qualification. You'd have to argue why cultural relativism is wrong, not hammering Popper around and calling "U r doin' it rong!"

Plz read again why my skin tickles.... Im so friendly and read your stuf... and write not just stuff down.
"Thats is the error... I see.... just look beyond page 7.... I get tickling in my skin; if I read that stuff. Some reasoning, some postivitims (so that we dont get some culturell realtisms debate), and some Popper arnt hurtful.... in the oposit even. It will just help this discussion."

As I wrote.... logical deductive arguments arnt aweful.
Like I laready said.... about the 300 mio... I have to add... not just illogical stuff is welcome. If you find some inductive reasoning it is welcome too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning


So if you write about "It's not even a good argument, it's a fallacy." Like I already said.... you can falzifcy me always...(not forget on stuff which I had wrote , we dont be little Gottis arnt we, and of course your point as to be logical deductiv and falsable). So "Hauling Popper as an absolute authority against someone who's taking the position of cultural relativism doesn't help at all. " as you see... you have done a Gotti.... as I discribe in the post before. My point was way larger......

As someone how belives in greed.... again.... I have given so many hinds and tips.... can you show me a argument line in thgis topic which is illogical or inductive... and so full of false premises. Yes, you get 300 mio isk.

* You see someone like Nicoletta Mithra post.... which just had "read Popper" and not the whole package, and has instate of falzifacy an argument post just some lines like: "Hauling Popper as an absolute authority against someone who's taking the position of cultural relativism doesn't help at all. It's not even a good argument, it's a fallacy." As poeple see... I have "throw" positivms, and not without reason, my construvistic friends

* But has forget the larger Point of an argument, and has on this topic just talk with himself without bringing a argument forward for his standpoint.... done a Morwen .... post it here.... you will get 300 mio isk.

* You have saw someone.... which had post a comment which can just work with an global law which says: "individuals dont act/makeing decisions, just cultures (not "social roles"... like the homo sociologicus... I mean cultures as whole). You will get 300 mio.

* This is the most important ones.... and maybe the easiest ones.... You see a comment which is inductive (not deductiv).... post it here. You will get 300 mio.

* You see a comment. Which is not logical, the argument as whole isnt logical and has internal errors.... Post it here.... You will get 300 mio.

* On another not.... as Lyn had hinted...you are affronted, by false as assumptions...like you are x or y. Post it here... I will roast Gotti for you. You have see someone doing a Scumbag Steve move.... ah... its the same... post it.


So overall like Nicoletta Mithra siad: "Sure, I agree that structuring ones arguments and sound logic are a great boon in any debate."* So lets do this and make her and me happy....



________________
by the way....you havent show me a logical answer to:
* ("Popper and positivism aren't, in my book, a necessary and not even particularly helpful area of knowledge for that, though.)" Why isnt that the case in your Book? Plz answer logical and deductiv... thx. I have try to answer all questions, be so friendly...when you do assumptions like "naiv falsizication" is overhauled.... bring the falzification of this models... not a model which stays actually next to it. You are doing than just a normativ assumption. Whithout actually doing science (Hint from Publius.... you will work more with a paradigm change than with an constructism, so more Kuhn). As he will have a explaination for my point (your point). That it is "naive falsificationism".... and not as you thing .... So again... take your time... read it again... I havent choose Friedman without a reason. He says in his essay an important error/point in postitivism (next hint: but comes in the end that - this error - it doesnt matter).



Edit: 300 mio isk for every example. Make my tickling go away. As you see Nicoletta my tickle skin comes from many points, and you can help, that it goes away

[Chell Charon]

The moral case for enslavement, is internally consistent for the Amarrian view. If you accept the presuppositions of the Amarrian faith, you have a moral obligation to limit the amount of souls lost due to their state of rebellion to God.

That is likely the reason most anti-slavers IC either go for an atheist argument or with claiming all holders abuse all slaves (with a possible exception with a minority).

For those going:
Slavery is abuse = All amarrian slaveholders abuse slaves in all ways.
I contest with:
Animal husbandry is abuse = All farmers abuse their animals in all ways.

It is an insane claim for anything else. So it should be here. Can I argue that animal husbandry is abuse of animals? Yes I can, easily enough. There is however no way in I can argue that all farmers abuse their animals beyond the terms of animal husbandry. It is not a consistent argument and nobody would accept this logic in anything else.

As for power corrupts?
For instance prisons. Nobody will argue that prison guards abusing the prisoners happens. However anybody saying this is the majority of prison guard => prisoner relationship will have some serious qualifying to do.

From these flow the question of how many innocent victims of slave abuse there are and especially from Amarr. Remember capsuleers are a minimal fraction of populace.

Amarrian practice of slavery is by internal logic a morally good deed.

Sansha can make a case for their form of slavery either being a moral good or at least with Means to an end argument.

Blood Raiders can make an internally consistent case for slavery being a non moral deed and merely being the way of the world. (Bloodletting, now there is a moral good )

Angel cartel, Serpentis and Guristas (Seven as well) Do not make a moral case for enslaving people. It is a for profit action, end of.

So to return to the analogy of animal husbandry. Which of these would you firebomb first if you believed animal husbandry to be a clear moral evil.

1. a Farm that tries to assure that the animals are well taken care of and only suffer the abuse of animal husbandry, because of their personal believes.

2. a Farm that is only intrested in profit by it's own admission and has no intrest beyond profit to avoid any other abuses from being visited on the animals. And hey if there is a profit in abusing the animals somehow..?

And before we get to "RL Horreeeble person". RL I am not of Amarrian faith nor do I live in Eve universe. IN RL we do not have any moral code that can argue an internally consistent case for the moral goodness of slavery.

WAY OT: Maybe one could actually get there via the codes of Satanism? (Not devil worship for those less familiar with terminology.)