You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Logos01 comments on [link] I Was Wrong, and So Are You - Less Wrong Discussion

17 [deleted] 09 November 2011 04:25PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (96)
Tags: bias politics media

Comments (96)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Logos01 09 November 2011 06:50:18PM 0 points [-]

You are saying that your interpretation implies the original question.

I'm saying it's an interpretation of the original question, yes.

But that leaves the possibility of your question being a stronger statement than the original question.

... my question, as I have proposed it, IS the original question. Or, rather, it's informational value is a subset of the informational value range available to the original question. Any assertions as to the potential strength of the original question, then, must include the rephrasing.

It's definitionally impossible for "what that statement means to me" to be "a stronger statement than that statement". It can be stronger than you intended -- but communication requires two participants.

If a libertarian denies your interpretation that does not necessarily mean they deny the original question.

I in fact offered up two mutually exclusive intrepretations of the question. The fact remains that they are re-expressions of the same original question, however.

In other words, it is possible that [...] is also false.

I agree unequivocably.

In other words, just because a poor people are not more likely to base their self-worth on dollars-owned than rich people, it does not mean that they necessarily do not value a dollar more than a rich person.

Again, I agree unequivocably.

For example [...]

Sure, no problem, absolutely.

Now please explain to me why any of this is relevant to the conversation at hand. :)

Comment author: jimrandomh 09 November 2011 07:53:21PM 0 points [-]

You are saying that your interpretation implies the original question.

I'm saying it's an interpretation of the original question, yes.

No. "A implies B" means either A&B, ~A&B, or ~A&~B. "A is an interpretation of B" means either A&B or ~A&~B, but excludes ~A&B. Let the statements be

(X) “A dollar means more to a poor person than it does to a rich person”
(Y) "A poor person is more likely to base his self-worth on how many dollars he owns than a rich person is likely to base his self-worth on how many dollars he owns."

You argued that Y implies X, but you didn't do anything to argue against X&~Y. I happen to believe X&~Y, which makes these statements definitely not mere rephrasings of each other.

Comment author: Logos01 09 November 2011 08:24:57PM *  -1 points [-]

"A is an interpretation of B" means either A&B or ~A&~B, but excludes ~A&B

Let the statements be (X) [...] (Y)

Here's your error. There's a (Z).

(Z) "A poor person will suffer more for the lack of one dollar than a rich person will suffer for the lack of one dollar."

Here's what I originally said, broken into symbolic logic for you:

  • X ⊃ Z
  • X ⊃ Y
  • Y = ¬Z & Z = ¬Y

At no time did I say, however, that Y ⊃ Z. That assertion would be a direct contradiction of my last line in the comment:

Both of these rephrasings are potential "effectively synonymous" statements to the original question, but I hope that their answers are quite obviously inverted from each other.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit