Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 11:34 am

Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Street Epistemology - Practice
RE: Street Epistemology - Practice
(January 18, 2018 at 11:47 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:
(January 18, 2018 at 11:34 pm)polymath257 Wrote: On the contrary, it is based on statistical evidence, and uses maximum likelihood to establish when more evidence is required. It may be used inconsistently by people, but that doesn't mean the basic principle is inconsistent. And it is justified by the overall justification used for induction as a key to knowledge in the physical sciences.

I could go deeper and provide a Bayesian analysis if you would like.

The claim is that similar circumstances demand similar conclusions, but I deny that it is a case of similar circumstances when the commonality of feline pets is well-established and that of invisible dragons is not. Your claim to what type of pet you have is not the only aspect of the relevant circumstances.

I’m curious.... but this is a little bit off topic.  If you would like to have an in depth discussion, perhaps it would be best to start another thread.  I do like to test principles though.  I’m also curious what is extraordinary evidence and how we determine what is necessary for a particular event.

Certainly feel free to start a new thread. Extraordinary evidence would be evidence different than what is implied by best current testable understanding but that is implied by the claim.
Reply
RE: Street Epistemology - Practice
(January 18, 2018 at 11:56 pm)polymath257 Wrote:
(January 18, 2018 at 11:47 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I’m curious.... but this is a little bit off topic.  If you would like to have an in depth discussion, perhaps it would be best to start another thread.  I do like to test principles though.  I’m also curious what is extraordinary evidence and how we determine what is necessary for a particular event.

Certainly feel free to start a new thread. Extraordinary evidence would be evidence different than what is implied by best current testable understanding but that is implied by the claim.

I have made threads before, i normally have difficulty with people not being able to discuss, because they start assuming motives.... however for me to start a thread, I would either be repeating a previous post, or calling you out. So I would prefer if you have something to say, that you make the post. The thread has veered from that quite a bit since it was posted,
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man.  - Alexander Vilenkin
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire.  - Martin Luther
Reply
RE: Street Epistemology - Practice
(January 19, 2018 at 12:58 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:
(January 18, 2018 at 11:56 pm)polymath257 Wrote: Certainly feel free to start a new thread. Extraordinary evidence would be evidence different than what is implied by best current testable understanding but that is implied by the claim.

I have made threads before, i normally have difficulty with people not being able to discuss, because they start assuming motives.... however for me to start a thread, I would either be repeating a previous post, or calling you out.  So I would prefer if you have something to say, that you make the post.  The thread has veered from that quite a bit since it was posted,

Sorry if this was a diversion. I'm fairly new here, so I'm not sure what the rules are for generating posts and 'calling someone out'. Do you have a recommended place/name for the post?
Reply
RE: Street Epistemology - Practice
(January 19, 2018 at 2:26 pm)polymath257 Wrote:
(January 19, 2018 at 12:58 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I have made threads before, i normally have difficulty with people not being able to discuss, because they start assuming motives.... however for me to start a thread, I would either be repeating a previous post, or calling you out.  So I would prefer if you have something to say, that you make the post.  The thread has veered from that quite a bit since it was posted,

Sorry if this was a diversion. I'm fairly new here, so I'm not sure what the rules are for generating posts and 'calling someone out'. Do you have a recommended place/name for the post?

No worries.  It's more of a preference of mine, to try and keep a linear and systematic progression of thought, and not be bouncing back and forth on multiple subjects within a post.  It's not that it  is a diversion,  I think that this certainly fits within the realm of epistemology, and this thread briefly tracked into that topic.  I offered some objections, and it seemed to be conceded and we move on.  I just don't want to draw away from this other conversations (I hope you don't mind). 

As for a place, I think philosophy is always a good category for this subject, although perhaps depending on your focus math may be an option with the Bayes theorem.  I'll warn you now, I'm not interested in double checking your math.  And for title... it's up to you (I should notice anything related). 

Also note... they do have a rule about calling out someone although I don't know if I'm exactly sure on the details.    I don't think that mentioning someone as a continuation from another thread is a problem such as here.   However for me to start the thread, it would either be me presenting a completely different view as I have in the past,   me trying to preempt what I think you are going to say, or basically saying little and calling you out.  None of these seem particularly appealing to me, so I hope you don't mind.
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man.  - Alexander Vilenkin
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire.  - Martin Luther
Reply
RE: Street Epistemology - Practice
There's no fucking rule against starting a thread focused on a diversion that crops up in a thread derail.  Fucking christ........
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
RE: Street Epistemology - Practice
(January 19, 2018 at 8:18 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:
(January 19, 2018 at 2:26 pm)polymath257 Wrote: Sorry if this was a diversion. I'm fairly new here, so I'm not sure what the rules are for generating posts and 'calling someone out'. Do you have a recommended place/name for the post?

No worries.  It's more of a preference of mine, to try and keep a linear and systematic progression of thought, and not be bouncing back and forth on multiple subjects within a post.  It's not that it  is a diversion,  I think that this certainly fits within the realm of epistemology, and this thread briefly tracked into that topic.  I offered some objections, and it seemed to be conceded and we move on.  I just don't want to draw away from this other conversations (I hope you don't mind). 

As for a place, I think philosophy is always a good category for this subject, although perhaps depending on your focus math may be an option with the Bayes theorem.  I'll warn you now, I'm not interested in double checking your math.  And for title... it's up to you (I should notice anything related). 

Also note... they do have a rule about calling out someone although I don't know if I'm exactly sure on the details.    I don't think that mentioning someone as a continuation from another thread is a problem such as here.   However for me to start the thread, it would either be me presenting a completely different view as I have in the past,   me trying to preempt what I think you are going to say, or basically saying little and calling you out.  None of these seem particularly appealing to me, so I hope you don't mind.
I'd like to have this conversation within this thread as it was a brief topic that I touched on and would like to continue discussing if that's ok.
Reply
RE: Street Epistemology - Practice
(January 22, 2018 at 6:05 pm)curiosne Wrote:
(January 19, 2018 at 8:18 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: No worries.  It's more of a preference of mine, to try and keep a linear and systematic progression of thought, and not be bouncing back and forth on multiple subjects within a post.  It's not that it  is a diversion,  I think that this certainly fits within the realm of epistemology, and this thread briefly tracked into that topic.  I offered some objections, and it seemed to be conceded and we move on.  I just don't want to draw away from this other conversations (I hope you don't mind). 

As for a place, I think philosophy is always a good category for this subject, although perhaps depending on your focus math may be an option with the Bayes theorem.  I'll warn you now, I'm not interested in double checking your math.  And for title... it's up to you (I should notice anything related). 

Also note... they do have a rule about calling out someone although I don't know if I'm exactly sure on the details.    I don't think that mentioning someone as a continuation from another thread is a problem such as here.   However for me to start the thread, it would either be me presenting a completely different view as I have in the past,   me trying to preempt what I think you are going to say, or basically saying little and calling you out.  None of these seem particularly appealing to me, so I hope you don't mind.
I'd like to have this conversation within this thread as it was a brief topic that I touched on and would like to continue discussing if that's ok.

That's ok with me....

If we are diverting, I have also been wondering...  What would you describe as the purpose or goal of Street Epistemology?
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man.  - Alexander Vilenkin
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire.  - Martin Luther
Reply
RE: Street Epistemology - Practice
(January 22, 2018 at 6:10 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:
(January 22, 2018 at 6:05 pm)curiosne Wrote: I'd like to have this conversation within this thread as it was a brief topic that I touched on and would like to continue discussing if that's ok.

That's ok with me....

If we are diverting, I have also been wondering...  What would you describe as the purpose or goal of Street Epistemology?

From my perspective, it's to analyse from a critical thinking methodology, how we know, what we know...ie ascertain the truthfulness of a claim.

(January 22, 2018 at 6:27 pm)curiosne Wrote:
(January 22, 2018 at 6:10 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: That's ok with me....

If we are diverting, I have also been wondering...  What would you describe as the purpose or goal of Street Epistemology?

From my perspective, it's to analyse from a critical thinking methodology, how we know, what we know...ie ascertain the truthfulness of a claim.

Also to promote rational thinking and move people towards rational actions. I believe that the more rational a civilisation becomes, the wiser we will be.
Reply
RE: Street Epistemology - Practice
(January 22, 2018 at 6:27 pm)curiosne Wrote:
(January 22, 2018 at 6:10 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: That's ok with me....

If we are diverting, I have also been wondering...  What would you describe as the purpose or goal of Street Epistemology?

From my perspective, it's to analyse from a critical thinking methodology, how we know, what we know...ie ascertain the truthfulness of a claim.

Ok... your first response just appears to be the definition of epistemology.   Are you just going out and examining claims at random?   I would agree, that epistemology should not just be a classroom exercise.

Quote:Also to promote rational thinking and move people towards rational actions. I believe that the more rational a civilisation becomes, the wiser we will be.

I think that this is good as well.  How would you go about doing this in your "street epistemology"? 

I think that many don't give enough thought to epistemology and many don't want to take the time for critical and rational thought.   For instance on the topic of extra ordinary claims that you want to return to.   I find that when I inquire most of the people who proclaim it, really haven't given it much thought to it's belief.  I usually get the same example (not reasoning) of believing something like the "cat" or "dragon" discussion that went on here.  And really that's it. How would you proceed in an instance such as this?
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man.  - Alexander Vilenkin
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire.  - Martin Luther
Reply
RE: Street Epistemology - Practice
(January 22, 2018 at 7:46 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:
(January 22, 2018 at 6:27 pm)curiosne Wrote: From my perspective, it's to analyse from a critical thinking methodology, how we know, what we know...ie ascertain the truthfulness of a claim.

Ok... your first response just appears to be the definition of epistemology.   Are you just going out and examining claims at random?   I would agree, that epistemology should  not just be a  classroom exercise.

Quote:Also to promote rational thinking and move people towards rational actions. I believe that the more rational a civilisation becomes, the wiser we will be.

I think that this is good as well.  How would you go about doing this in your "street epistemology"? 

I think that many don't give enough thought to epistemology and many don't want to take the time for critical and rational thought.   For instance on the topic of extra ordinary claims that you want to return to.   I find that when I inquire most of the people who proclaim it, really haven't given it much thought to it's belief.  I usually get the same example (not reasoning) of believing something like the "cat" or "dragon" discussion that went on here.  And really that's it. How would you proceed in an instance such as this?
The problem I see on why people don't think critically is due to how they are taught in school. Schools mainly try to get students to memorise facts without teaching the to properly assess facts and evidence in a critical way.

When I started trying to do street epistemology, I wasn't quite sure how to proceed with trying to improve people's rational thinking. It wasn't until the last few posts where polymath257 mentioned statistical evidence to determine what is ordinary and what is extraordinary that one piece of the puzzle came together.

I had the statistical evidence in the back of my mind when I was reply to your questions earlier in the thread but couldn't articulate it properly, however it is an appropriate term to use to gauge what is ordinary and what isn't.

Let me know your thoughts on this.

(January 22, 2018 at 7:46 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:
(January 22, 2018 at 6:27 pm)curiosne Wrote: From my perspective, it's to analyse from a critical thinking methodology, how we know, what we know...ie ascertain the truthfulness of a claim.

Ok... your first response just appears to be the definition of epistemology.   Are you just going out and examining claims at random?   I would agree, that epistemology should  not just be a  classroom exercise.

Quote:Also to promote rational thinking and move people towards rational actions. I believe that the more rational a civilisation becomes, the wiser we will be.

I think that this is good as well.  How would you go about doing this in your "street epistemology"? 

I think that many don't give enough thought to epistemology and many don't want to take the time for critical and rational thought.   For instance on the topic of extra ordinary claims that you want to return to.   I find that when I inquire most of the people who proclaim it, really haven't given it much thought to it's belief.  I usually get the same example (not reasoning) of believing something like the "cat" or "dragon" discussion that went on here.  And really that's it. How would you proceed in an instance such as this?
The problem I see on why people don't think critically is due to how they are taught in school. Schools mainly try to get students to memorise facts without teaching the to properly assess facts and evidence in a critical way.

When I started trying to do street epistemology, I wasn't quite sure how to proceed with trying to improve people's rational thinking. It wasn't until the last few posts where polymath257 mentioned statistical evidence to determine what is ordinary and what is extraordinary that one piece of the puzzle came together.

I had the statistical evidence in the back of my mind when I was reply to your questions earlier in the thread but couldn't articulate it properly, however it is an appropriate term to use to gauge what is ordinary and what isn't.

Let me know your thoughts on this.

(January 22, 2018 at 7:46 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:
(January 22, 2018 at 6:27 pm)curiosne Wrote: From my perspective, it's to analyse from a critical thinking methodology, how we know, what we know...ie ascertain the truthfulness of a claim.

Ok... your first response just appears to be the definition of epistemology.   Are you just going out and examining claims at random?   I would agree, that epistemology should  not just be a  classroom exercise.

Quote:Also to promote rational thinking and move people towards rational actions. I believe that the more rational a civilisation becomes, the wiser we will be.

I think that this is good as well.  How would you go about doing this in your "street epistemology"? 

I think that many don't give enough thought to epistemology and many don't want to take the time for critical and rational thought.   For instance on the topic of extra ordinary claims that you want to return to.   I find that when I inquire most of the people who proclaim it, really haven't given it much thought to it's belief.  I usually get the same example (not reasoning) of believing something like the "cat" or "dragon" discussion that went on here.  And really that's it. How would you proceed in an instance such as this?
The problem I see on why people don't think critically is due to how they are taught in school. Schools mainly try to get students to memorise facts without teaching the to properly assess facts and evidence in a critical way.

When I started trying to do street epistemology, I wasn't quite sure how to proceed with trying to improve people's rational thinking. It wasn't until the last few posts where polymath257 mentioned statistical evidence to determine what is ordinary and what is extraordinary that one piece of the puzzle came together.

I had the statistical evidence in the back of my mind when I was reply to your questions earlier in the thread but couldn't articulate it properly, however it is an appropriate term to use to gauge what is ordinary and what isn't.

Let me know your thoughts on this.

(January 22, 2018 at 7:46 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:
(January 22, 2018 at 6:27 pm)curiosne Wrote: From my perspective, it's to analyse from a critical thinking methodology, how we know, what we know...ie ascertain the truthfulness of a claim.

Ok... your first response just appears to be the definition of epistemology.   Are you just going out and examining claims at random?   I would agree, that epistemology should  not just be a  classroom exercise.

Quote:Also to promote rational thinking and move people towards rational actions. I believe that the more rational a civilisation becomes, the wiser we will be.

I think that this is good as well.  How would you go about doing this in your "street epistemology"? 

I think that many don't give enough thought to epistemology and many don't want to take the time for critical and rational thought.   For instance on the topic of extra ordinary claims that you want to return to.   I find that when I inquire most of the people who proclaim it, really haven't given it much thought to it's belief.  I usually get the same example (not reasoning) of believing something like the "cat" or "dragon" discussion that went on here.  And really that's it. How would you proceed in an instance such as this?
The problem I see on why people don't think critically is due to how they are taught in school. Schools mainly try to get students to memorise facts without teaching the to properly assess facts and evidence in a critical way.

When I started trying to do street epistemology, I wasn't quite sure how to proceed with trying to improve people's rational thinking. It wasn't until the last few posts where polymath257 mentioned statistical evidence to determine what is ordinary and what is extraordinary that one piece of the puzzle came together.

I had the statistical evidence in the back of my mind when I was reply to your questions earlier in the thread but couldn't articulate it properly, however it is an appropriate term to use to gauge what is ordinary and what isn't.

Let me know your thoughts on this.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  street epistemology drfuzzy 138 22438 December 26, 2015 at 3:56 pm
Last Post: Delicate
  Crazy atheists freaking out at street preachers ksona 13 3060 May 27, 2014 at 3:05 pm
Last Post: JesusHChrist
  Street Epistemology / Dr Peter Boghossian / A Manual For Creating Atheists mralstoner 0 1658 July 1, 2013 at 2:49 am
Last Post: mralstoner
  Religion New York Atheists Angry Over 'Heaven' Street Sign Honoring Sept. 11 Victims? MilesTailsPrower 4 3050 June 23, 2011 at 11:24 am
Last Post: Anymouse



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)