And of course being children under the spell of the idea of freedom as they conceive of it, suppose themselves heroic for defending it, never realizing they're dangerous and stupid fools hurting, harming, and damaging what they want to protect. — tim wood
Covid deaths: 1800 a day, two day average over 3,000. That’s a 9/11 every two days. Idaho and Texas hospitals pushed to the max, and now southern hospitals: — Xtrix
I suppose I ought to agree, the sentiment being so, well, well-meant. But I don't. They're fools; they're stupid; they're stupid fools. — tim wood
As hospitals are overrun in Idaho and Texas and ~3000 die every two days. — Xtrix
I decided to respond. Xtrix can ignore this post if he is not interested in my abstract academic philosophizing.By the way, ad verecundiam/populum isn't quite applicable here. The world (nature, evidence) is the authority here anyway, that's what subject matter experts point at
So like a sneak you’ve written this is a way that suggests those deaths are occurring in Texas and Idaho, when it’s really across all of the US. — AJJ
Around 8,000 people die per day in the US of all causes. — AJJ
the amount of experts on either side of a position does not tell us who is more likely to be right, — Yohan
So you misread what I wrote and I’m a “sneak” because you haven’t followed the death cases which are posted almost everywhere one gets news. — Xtrix
you have not troubled to think about what an expert is, how they work, or how they think, as experts. — tim wood
You're still young, then, at heart if not by the clock, — tim wood
Then explain how. I gave a detailed explanation. Show where I made an error, if you want. I am always open to being proven wrong. I hope I do get proven wrong because then it will mean I have learned something.the amount of experts on either side of a position does not tell us who is more likely to be right, — Yohan
It does exactly that. — Xtrix
I was saying that in a tongue and cheek way. I don't think I am being especially abstract. I don't know what case you are referring to. Xtrix when called out on circular reasoning called what he claimed "essentially a truism."If you're going to abstractly, academically philosophize, then do it, instead of being foolish. Xtrix makes the case already, but I'll add that you have not troubled to think about what an expert is, how they work, or how they think, as experts. — tim wood
Then explain how. I gave a detailed explanation. Show where I made an error, if you want. I am always open to being proven wrong. I hope I do get proven wrong because then it will mean I have learned something. — Yohan
I said if there are more experts on one side, and less but still some on the other side, that that isn't enough information to reach a conclusion about which is more likely to be right. — Yohan
Here is quick test for you. If 2 experts believe Y is true, and 1 expert believes Y is false, is it TWICE as likely that the 2 experts are right and the 1 expert is wrong? Please be honest here. — Yohan
Webster:Do you know what an expert is? Or what the designation means? I ask because it appears you do not. — tim wood
1. Sorry if I'm being overly picky, but what exactly do you mean by 'presumed'? And is the presumption a necessary part of the definition, or a necessary aspect to determine an expert?The essence is this. An expert may be presumed, in terms of his or her personal understanding and knowledge, to be at or near the limit of what in his area of expertise can be known or understood. — tim wood
I don't understand. The experts should agree on what can be known and understood? Until I understand, this, I don't understand how further down you reached the conclusion that a majority of expert agreement is itself compelling. If what I said is what you meant, then I don't see why experts should necessarily agree on what can be known or understood.Thus if something can be known or understood, then on that at least experts should agree. — tim wood
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.