Rationality is choosing to acknowledge that candlelight is fire, instead of preserving your dignity by maintaining the search.
Now Eliezer has cleverly gotten us to turn down a certain $1,000 by telling us lies about how the other box will contain $1,000,000 if we choose only it! Wasn't that clever of him?
Wow... people give you negative carma, just because they dont understand your analogy...
Deal or no deal...
There are no shortage of cases from other jurisdictions of people convicted for obtaining sex by pretending to be someone else, and obtaining sex by threats not involving violence is specifically listed on this Australian government web site (see "The perpetrator bullied them, for example, by threatening to leave them in a deserted area at night").
It's also worth pointing out that the domain of what is legally considered rape is one that has expanded substantially over time, and does not seem likely to stop expanding. As one example, raping one's spouse was a contradiction in terms, legally speaking, until relatively recently even in the developed world. The criminalisation of spousal rape is generally seen as moral progress. Currently in most of the developed world you will only be charged with rape by deception if you mislead the victim about your identity or tell them to have sex with you for medical reasons (I guess that must have been way more of a problem than I would have guessed since it's addressed specifically), but there seems no fundamental reason to single out those forms of deception.
Myself I agree with High Court Justice Elyakim Rubinstein of Israel who argued that it should be a crime if a “person does not tell the truth regarding critical matters to a reasonable woman, and as a result of misrepresentation she has sexual relations with him.” Currently many men believe that misleading women to obtain sex is "just how it is", and that it's not immoral to do so. I suspect that in the medium term this view will go the way of the view that spousal rape is "just how it is".
“person does not tell the truth regarding critical matters to a reasonable woman, and as a result of misrepresentation she has sexual relations with him.”
First of all, how in the hell would you decide what is and isnt a critical matter. Its an appeal to authority of the most crazy kind. Now we cant even lie to protect ourselves for the reason that the law would always find in the favour of the plaintiff.
And what happens to omissions? Pretty soon we wont be able to have privacy atall, and instead, have state approved truths and security cameras on every street... but, we allready know that israel is a police state.
No amount of force results in logic. Science needs to hurry its ass and replace law.
Fish in a barrel... Must stop myself...
mouth making promises my brain cant keep.
Legally speaking this is far off the mark in most jurisdictions. I would call this "archetypal rape".
However lots of other things still qualify as rape, although they typically attract lighter sentences, in exactly the same way that different things that qualify as murder typically attract different sentences.
Obtaining sex by deception, or bullying which does not involve physical violence or the threat thereof, for example, is still going to get you charged with rape in most places. In a recent case a man was jailed for obtaining sex by deceiving a woman about his religion. I've got no problem with that.
(I do have a problem with the likelihood that there would have been no conviction if a Jewish woman had obtained sex by deception from a Palestinian man, but that's a separate issue touching on sexism and racism).
You clearly know something of the law. Then why would you try to learn from a case in an israeli jurisdiction!? They still use relgious law there. Which is the most obvious kind of appeal to authority fallacy the law produces. Clearly the verdict, case and even police cannot be trusted to be unbiased.
29
'#29 would be less wrong if you update for the realisation that Hinduism isn't a religion (it's a collection of similar religions). Also atheism, from the outside is a belief system which has tenants, position on deity and deity principles, and often recommends moral and ethical behaviour values based on anthrological position in relation to humans, authority and diety (or lack thereof). Futhermore these tenants are debated, expounded, tested, philosophised about and recorded in document. Often there is also demands and improperly qualified examination (based on wild-claims and popular brands of god/religion) that rely on faith and false assumption. ("creation of the brand of 'sky daddy') . That atheism is a natural vs. a revealed religion does not stop it being a religion "just because atheists say so" (because they don't like religion").
Who gets to set the value of God, for the test anyway?? For me the value of God "Is that which creates the whole of being". (ie universe/multiverse, with time being merely one dimension of many). All other values are other peoples' variants or "commercial brands". :. theism is the only sane choice, with further knowledge and exploration avilable from there. Atheism would require refutation of creation, or of all forms of existance (even illusionary ones). Consensus agreement on belief doesn't make it any truer (or falser) - and all tests must be done in context to the Information under examination. ie All atheist arguments re: god seem to rotate around a strawman assumption of God (eg like disproving drink is good for you by picking CocaCola is the only True Drink). And then they go on to build a Jengo of arguments and assumptions to prove their beliefs are correct - where they refuse to test their assumptions as they assume its Disputing Definitions (where if a possible assumption is occur it is likely to be less wrong to test it's case, and note the contexts)
A collection of religions is no different than one religion. Even christianity has a collection of similar relgions like mormonism, but they are all classified as relgions. Because they share common parts.
And while there may be many definitions of god. If they pertain to a deity then they are indeed a relgion. It is easy to dissprove deities by experimental evidence.
You then go on to describe your definition of a relgion, and try to apply that to atheism. However this is not really a proper definion, as athiesm is based on scientific evidence, and not philosophy. But, i agree with you that there are a large number of bad practicing athiests that straw man, ad hominem and appeal to authority very often.
"Who gets to set the value of God, for the test anyway??"
Almost every time there are phonomona attributed to a god, which can be analyised. If they appear at any rate above that of chance, then their claim has some validity. However, i havent heard of this happening yet.
"theism is the only sane choice, with further knowledge and exploration avilable from there." Just because you say it is, doesnt make it true.
"Atheism would require refutation of creation, or of all forms of existance (even illusionary ones)."
No, athiesm requires proof of creation, in any form. It does not need to refute the idea of a creator which, without evidence is just a hypothesis.
"Consensus agreement on belief doesn't make it any truer (or falser)" True.
"and all tests must be done in context to the Information under examination."
The information in this case, is a hypothesis. In good science, there is allways a null hypothesis explaining the oppoiste. The experiment then answeres both of them.
"All atheist arguments re: god seem to rotate around a strawman assumption of God… And then they go on to build a Jengo of arguments and assumptions to prove their beliefs are correct”
Most often they use the claims made by the religious themselves, and their books.
A good atheist or scientist, has no beliefs, but only evidence. And lack of evidence in favour of a religion weakens the credibility of the person or the book.
"There's no way my choice of X can be 'wrong'" is nearly always an error in practice, whatever the theory. You can always be wrong. Even when it's theoretically impossible to be wrong, you can still be wrong. There is never a Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free card for anything you do. That's life."
AHahahaa oh god... thats a contradiction, or inconsistency fallacy.
If "whatever the theory. You can always be wrong." does it mean that THIS theory is wrong?
- A word fails to connect to reality in the first place.
The example given: framster, could mean anything. We don’t know. Its not a matter of the word failing to connect to reality. Its is a flaw of our interpenetration of the word. Framster could mean philosopher in Cantonese.
I think you mean, a word that fails to describe reality properly.
In the source for this point it seems that the sentence used is actually a very badly structured question with no English grammar.
The answer to this question is: neither of the boxes can be believed to be true without evidence, no matter what they purport is inside them. So if the king is to be believed that one contains the key, it is still a 50/50 chance, and will never reduce from that. A truly logical person would never believe the king and gamble with his life.
In a similar way the statement “this statement is false” doesn’t pertain to anything and therefore has no evidence to analyse. The argument is often put forward that the statement is deliberately structured to pertain to itself, but without any evidence to lend credibility to its analysis of itself, it cant be believed. That is to say; just because you write it down on a peace of paper, doesn’t mean its true or real, or, just because you believe yourself to be the king, doesn’t mean you are.
“2. Your argument, if it worked, could coerce reality to go a different way by choosing a different word definition.”
Bending, and crafting false definitions is reprehensible, but can be easily disproved with evidence.
“3. You try to establish any sort of empirical proposition as being true "by definition". Socrates is a human, and humans, by definition, are mortal. So is it a logical truth if we empirically predict that Socrates should keel over if he drinks hemlock? It seems like there are logically possible, non-self-contradictory worlds where Socrates doesn't keel over - where he's immune to hemlock by a quirk of biochemistry, say. Logical truths are true in all possible worlds, and so never tell you which possible world you live in - and anything you can establish "by definition" is a logical truth.”
This is wrong. A good critical thinker would simply say it is a generalisation fallacy to assume all humans are susceptible to hemlock. And that is all that is needed. Even though not all generalisations are false, as to say that, would itself be a generalisation of generalisations. So we simply say it is likely that he is susceptible, or that most humans are susceptible.
Unfortunately, the article has not supported its conclusion with any of its evidence.
“You try to establish any sort of empirical proposition as being true "by definition".” If something fulfils all the criteria of a definition. Then it can be referred to as such. If we are looking at a cup of milk. We see that; by definition, it must be made of the same components as milk of any animal, and must also be in a container with an open end. Therefore, the argument; “this is a glass of milk” is proven by the criteria of the definition, for which we have found evidence for.
This “establish any sort of empirical proposition as being true "by definition".” Is just a convoluted theory that makes the mistake of never collecting evidence to prove the definition. If it was true, then its own definition of the particular action described, would also prove nothing. Therefore it is a contradiction, or inconsistency fallacy or another circular argument.
I have only begun to analyse this set of information. But it seems that everything here is likely to be wrong.
"There's no way my choice of X can be 'wrong'" is nearly always an error in practice, whatever the theory. You can always be wrong. Even when it's theoretically impossible to be wrong, you can still be wrong. There is never a Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free card for anything you do. That's life."
AHahahaa oh god... thats a contradiction, or inconsistency fallacy.
If "whatever the theory. You can always be wrong." does it mean that THIS theory is wrong?
- A word fails to connect to reality in the first place.
The example given: framster, could mean anything. We don’t know. Its not a matter of the word failing to connect to reality. Its is a flaw of our interpenetration of the word. Framster could mean philosopher in Cantonese.
I think you mean, a word that fails to describe reality properly.
In the source for this point it seems that the sentence used is actually a very badly structured question with no English grammar.
The answer to this question is: neither of the boxes can be believed to be true without evidence, no matter what they purport is inside them. So if the king is to be believed that one contains the key, it is still a 50/50 chance, and will never reduce from that. A truly logical person would never believe the king and gamble with his life.
In a similar way the statement “this statement is false” doesn’t pertain to anything and therefore has no evidence to analyse. The argument is often put forward that the statement is deliberately structured to pertain to itself, but without any evidence to lend credibility to its analysis of itself, it cant be believed. That is to say; just because you write it down on a peace of paper, doesn’t mean its true or real, or, just because you believe yourself to be the king, doesn’t mean you are.
CriticalSteel -- I've not made any argument to you, circular or otherwise. I refuse to argue with you because you're obnoxious and rude.
No, I'm not making arguments about the validity of my estimation of you either, I'm just communicating it to you.
You still think people are debating you. We're not. We're telling you to improve your behavior or go AWAY. This is not an argument, this is an instruction: Improve your manners or be downvoted to oblivion, again, and again, and again.
"I've not made any argument to you"
Everything you SAY is an argument, a proposition, everything is a theory until proven. Which the credibility must be analysed by critical thinking criteria.
and,
If your making an argument that doesnt include evidence then your not being logical.
"this is an instruction"
Who are you, who is to suggest instructions to me, without any evidence or credibility atall by the critical thinking criteria.
"Improve your manners or be downvoted to oblivion, again, and again, and again."
Restricting the options fallacy http://www.criticalthinking.org.uk/unit2/fundamentals/logicalfallacies/restrictingtheoptions/
I'll choose door number 3 please: I'll continue using critical thinking, proving you wrong. Untill you all come around... or not.
Aris, I've noticed you keep engaging low-quality contributions (from different users). It's better to avoid commenting on posts that are expected to be downvoted to hidden-by-default (or already have been), otherwise you encourage further low-quality contributions.
He hasn’t proven anything yet...
All i did was challenge the "here be dragons" video, on its flaws, as per critical thinking. Which is the premier, logical method. But none of you seem to know it.
Now, having challenged your beliefs i am subjected to a cascade of arguments filled with logical fallacies in their critical thinking.
Simply put. You condemn what you don’t understand.
Also, most of you here are completely illogical and cannot even make a comment without handicapping yourself.
Just what makes you think you can down vote a critical thinker, when you yourself cannot even do it?
There are massive, gaping flaws in the core principles you all take for granted. Most of them are based on opinion and never tested, obviously, because their full of logical fallacies which people have known about since the 1700s.
View more: Next
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
It took me a while to understand this one because theres allot of assumptions within it. They are;
that the king isnt lying
that the king isnt mistaken
that the inscription isnt lying
that there is infact 1 key or dagger.
All of which have to be taken on faith. Which my brain obviously couldnt handle.
But if you belive all of that. The you should find that; as the king told you one box contained the key, then there is only one key, and of the other box is to be believed "that both boxes contain the same mystery item" then thats a contradiction, which means the opposite box is more likly to be true.
However this is wrong.
If the king is to be believed, then theres a 50/50 chance no matter what box you pick. But if the box is to be believed, then the other box is the container, but it could be lying. Therefore the chance is still an irreducible 50/50. Furthermore, believing either claim would require an assumption that the game was set up fairly or unfairly. And we know assumptions to be fallacies and never to make them.
The answer to the box question can only be worked out once the box is opened and the evidence is found. The validity of the claims can only be tested by using them.
As this is used as a proof of the core sequence “37 ways words can be wrong” “A word fails to connect to reality in the first place.”
I must say that it in no way supports this conclusion.