We have simply agreed to take certain actions -- one paying the other what is owed -- based on the outcome of an event. — Srap Tasmaner
I don't think this cuts to the idea of what a bet is. Suppose Joe needs $10 and offers to wash my dishes to earn it. I tell Joe, "sorry, I only have $5, and I just bet on the Celtics game with Srap. Tell you what, though. If the Celtics win, I'll let you wash my dishes for $10." Despite what Joe and I have being conditioned on the same actions and events our bet is conditioned on, Joe and I do not have a bet... it's simply a conditional contract. — InPitzotl
"Competing in a contest" and "competing" denote distinct things.No, I really did mean to say we're not competing, because I don't think betting is competing.
When you're competing in a contest — Srap Tasmaner
But it's wrong (in the sense that it does not follow). We cannot interfere in the Lakers game, but that does not entail we're not in a contest. We're not playing basketball; we're playing a prediction game. You chose the basketball game we bet on. You chose to bet on the Lakers winning. You chose the $5 wager. I chose to accept the wager. These are the variables that went into the bet.This is hard to see clearly, I think, but if this were a contest, I could make an effort to make it more likely that if the Lakers win, you'll owe me, or to make it less likely that if the Celtics win, I'll owe you. — Srap Tasmaner
Yes, if I open the fuse box, I might see the blown fuse. But it does not seem to matter whether I'm doing so to verify there's a blown fuse or figure out if there's a blown fuse. It might be quicker if I check the fuse box first, but both are observing and verifying, quite frankly, the same exact fact.Yes, it's an observable and verifiable fact, empirical, the kind I like. — Olivier5
You're clearly not talking about this:And then the hypothesis that this blown fuse was the reason your car was not starting occured to you and you changed the fuse and then the car started, proving that the blown fuse was at least in part responsible for the condition. — Olivier5
It is a fact that there was a blown fuse. — InPitzotl
Your distinction sounds completely arbitrary. If you're trying to clarify the difference between the totally disparate "fact" and "theory" concepts, you're doing a bad job illustrating the difference.So the facts of the matter are that you found a blown fuse and that the car started when you replaced it. The rest, ie the idea the your car didn't start yesterday because of that blown fuse, are theories, not facts. — Olivier5
I don't think it's a matter of where you draw the line in the first place. You establish that something is the case to your own satisfaction, and that becomes a fact from which you can infer something else. Maybe you're wrong sometimes, but that's okay; this is a game you play with a pencil and an eraser, not a pen.Why don't you try and do a better job than me? This is indeed an important distinction, which I am trying to uphold. — Olivier5
I'm not sure which concept of theory you're after, but it sounds like you just came up with a distinction on your own. A fact must be true. A theory may or may not be true. (I must explicitly point out that this is not the concept of a scientific theory, given this is a common misconception).And since theories can (at least in theory!) be true, equating facts with truth erases that distinction. — Olivier5
it sounds like you just came up with a distinction on your own — InPitzotl
And it provides another reason to define facts as 'acurate observations', at least in scientific language: science is made of 1) observations and 2) induced theories tying the observation in a logical or mathematical net. Now, logicians tell us that induction never provides certainty, that just because you never saw a black swan doesn't mean there's no such thing. Therefore our induced theories are provisional. But the observations that were done, remain done, factum, unless they were poorly done of course. Any new theory would have to contend with past observations. So observations (and only they) are facts. — Olivier5
Ah, in that case, as I understand it, a scientific theory will explain why a set of facts is the case. To contrast, and also to use in a moment, there are scientific laws... those do not explain a set of facts, but rather suggest there's a relationship between the facts. So for example Tycho Brahe's observations of the motion of the planets led to the development of Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion. Newton's Law of Gravity simplifies this law. General Relativity is a theory that explains and refines Newton's law.I've brought it up before on the thread: — Olivier5
...because the stellar/galactic facts that lead to Hubble's Law themselves rely on theory.Therefore our induced theories are provisional. But the observations that were done, remain done, factum, unless they were poorly done of course. — Olivier5
because the stellar/galactic facts that lead to Hubble's Law themselves rely on theory. — InPitzotl
is a fact that 1+1=2, — Janus
In base 2 numeration, 1+1=10. — Olivier5
Yes, and scientifically speaking, they are facts.Their interpretation relied on theory. — Olivier5
Back to drawing lines? Do the planets exist when you aren't looking at them, or is that just theory? Where does object permanence lie?but there is still such a thing as the brute picture taken of a distant galaxy, its spectrum analysis and the likes. Brute facts, the data, this data and not another. — Olivier5
We're not playing basketball; we're playing a prediction game. You chose the basketball game we bet on. You chose to bet on the Lakers winning. You chose the $5 wager. I chose to accept the wager. These are the variables that went into the bet. — InPitzotl
I don't think this cuts to the idea of what a bet is. Suppose Joe needs $10 and offers to wash my dishes to earn it. I tell Joe, "sorry, I only have $5, and I just bet on the Celtics game with Srap. Tell you what, though. If the Celtics win, I'll let you wash my dishes for $10." Despite what Joe and I have being conditioned on the same actions and events our bet is conditioned on, Joe and I do not have a bet... it's simply a conditional contract. — InPitzotl
Be more specific. The bet(1) is an offer; the bet(2) is a contract; betting is the act of negotiating a bet(2). Again in the bridge analogy, the bet(1) is a bid; the bet(2) is the result of bidding, and betting is bidding. "How we decide what to bet on" is equivalent to "how we bet(1) to arrive at a bet(2)" which is just betting. If we're betting on something we do not get to interfere with, then once we have a bet(2), we don't have any input. It sounds like that's what you're saying. Yes, that's true. However, we don't get to a bet(2) without betting, and when we are betting, we have inputs. We've been over this; you control your bet(1) as you negotiate the bet(2). Again with the bridge analogy, there's an entire skillset associated with betting; not only that, but there's a series of complex "signals" you give through bets (bidding systems) to communicate information critical to arriving at a bet(2).How we decide what to bet on -- interesting though it may be, and important as it may be if you want to make a living doing this sort of thing -- doesn't matter in the least as far as the bets themselves are concerned. — Srap Tasmaner
I have no idea what you're trying to convince me of, but you're very unconvincing. Relating this to bridge, I translate what you're saying as that it does not matter how you arrive at your bet(1)'s to select the bet(2) as far as the bet(2) is concerned. And that is quite plainly false. It does indeed matter. If you bet(1) by jabbing your pen onto a board of possible bets, your partner will be furious and your opposition will wipe the floor with you.You can pick your horses using an ingenious system that needs a Cray to run it or you can close your eyes and jab the racing form with a pen — Srap Tasmaner
This makes no sense. Probability does matter, even for a single event; that's why it's useful in the first place. Even so, all you are doing if you bet "a lot" is changing the probability that you win (e.g., if there's a 60% chance you win a single symmetric $5 bet, there's a 81/125 chance you'll come out ahead in 3 such bets).Being better at predicting is generally nice if you do it a lot, but you still don't get paid for making better predictions overall or for doing a better job of analysis than someone else; you get paid if and only if the horses finish as you said they would. — Srap Tasmaner
The dishwashing job is an agreement between myself and Joe for Joe to do something for me in exchange for the consideration of $20, which is a contract. The contract is agreed to based on a condition.You have promised Joe that if the Celtics win you'll give him the dishwashing job. — Srap Tasmaner
IANAL, but you do realize that verbal contracts in the US where we both live can be legally binding, right?since he had no claim on you. — Srap Tasmaner
What Contracts are Required to Be in Writing? (FindLaw)Most contracts can be either written or oral and still be legally enforceable, — FindLaw
Where do you draw the lines and what is your good reason to draw the lines there? — InPitzotl
Where does object permanence lie? — InPitzotl
Banno is on his own orbit here — Olivier5
Being better at predicting is generally nice if you do it a lot, but you still don't get paid for making better predictions overall or for doing a better job of analysis than someone else; you get paid if and only if the horses finish as you said they would. — Srap Tasmaner
This makes no sense. Probability does matter, even for a single event; that's why it's useful in the first place. Even so, all you are doing if you bet "a lot" is changing the probability that you win — InPitzotl
You replied, but you did not answer the question.That's easy, and already explained: data, empirical evidence, are facts. Theories are not. — Olivier5
If you're talking about the use of the terms in science, there's a distinction, but it's what I described, not what you described.If facts are theory, explain to me why we need facts (data, observations)? — Olivier5
Again, you replied, but you did not answer the question. Is it a fact that planets exist when you aren't looking at them, or a theory that planets exist when you aren't looking at them?:In my mind it's an absolute presupposition. I.e. it's part of metaphysics. — Olivier5
It's contradictory.It's a simple point. — Srap Tasmaner
So what you're saying is because I might draw a blue marble, it does not matter what the probability is that I draw a red one.It doesn't matter that you made the smart bet, that the odds were in your favor, you owe me $5. — Srap Tasmaner
But that doesn't change anything. If we play 100 times (with replacement), I might pick 51, or 52, or 53, all the way up to 100 blue marbles. In all of those cases I would owe you money. If what might happen means probability doesn't matter, it wouldn't matter here either. There is no number of times we can play where it's not true that you "might" win.If we made the same bet a great number of times, the odds would tell, and you would make money on the exercise. — Srap Tasmaner
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.