To be right or to be wrong

[Gurdur]

Sorry to put it in this way, but these could be the worlds of a religious fanatic.

You're more right than you know, Bodhi, you're more right than you know; mind you, the adjective there could easily be dropped making it very accurate, but hey.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

You're more right than you know, Bodhi, you're more right than you know; mind you, the adjective there could easily be dropped making it very accurate, but hey.

Sorry, if it was a joke, I didnt get it. English is not my first language. Also, if what I said was not well understood I will repeat it.


EDIT:

Maybe I get it, I have to say THOSE instead of THESE, right?

 

[CapelDodger]

So you say that actual happenings determine if one is right or wrong. Does this imply that we are always guessing?

"Guessing" is hardly the term to describe rational, informed prediction. So when we're engaging in that we're not guessing.

Take two industry analyzer for example. One of them, based on economic facts, the consensus of the market, technical analysis and etc determine that a stock will be up and its time to buy. Another one, based on the same metrics, will say that the stock will fall and its time to sell.

Then lets imagine that the stock did rise. Was the first analyst right?

Yes. By definition.

if he was lucky, why is he promoted and the other one fired? (this last question is rethorical, I guess you can see my point).

Not in the slightest. If someone is promoted on the basis of an outcome that may have been pure luck it's a bad management strategy (I'd rate any shares involved a Sell ). That's a completely different subject. Sensible managements (and clients) will want to see a track-record that significantly defies chance. Luck only enters into things through nepotism.

Warren Buffet hasn't just been a lucky guesser. He has made rational informed predictions that have consistently proved right. That involves some work in getting to understand, and be well-informed of, the subject in hand.

It might be nice to think that every prediction is a guess so any labour invested would be wasted, but the truth is it ain't so.

 

[Gurdur]

....Maybe I get it, I have to say THOSE instead of THESE, right?

I was actually referring to the adjective "religious". It was my comment about the poster you were referring to. Please don't worry about it.

 

[qayak]

Sorry to put it in this way, but these could be the worlds of a religious fanatic.

And your point is . . . what exactly is your point?

Arguments over the meanings of words are ridiculous. Pick up a dictionary, read the meaning and we'll use that one. The only thing that matters is the idea the words are conveying.

 

[qayak]

Who knows, maybe what happens it that it exposes the limitation of those ideas. After all, ideas are just words that are put together in a fancy way.

You put the cart before the horse.

 

[qayak]

So, lets read again some of the posts in the thread. For example, what can you say about if the earth is flat or round? Or about gravity, is it a force or a distortion?

For all intents and purposes the Earth is round. Or are we looking to argue over this and say it is an oblate sheroid?

Gravity is still being worked on. It appears as a force. If you were to view it as a distortion, you would have to ask yourself what force is acting on the medium to cause the distortion?

 

[qayak]

I was actually referring to the adjective "religious". It was my comment about the poster you were referring to. Please don't worry about it.

Bodhi,

This is just Gurdur's way of saying he has absolutely nothing intelligent to add to the discussion. The best he can do is an ad hominem.

Thanks for coming out, Gurdur.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

"Guessing" is hardly the term to describe rational, informed prediction. So when we're engaging in that we're not guessing.

But what is really behind such a rational, informed prediction? In the market analysts example, usually the one who made that informed prediction is only picked out when what he/she said actually happened. What kind of prediction is this? Sounds like a religious one.

Yes. By definition.

Yes. By definition. But this is also an ad hoc hypotesis. My point is that, if we dont have a way to assert who is right until the actual fact happens, then no body is never right, but, again, just guessing.

Not in the slightest. If someone is promoted on the basis of an outcome that may have been pure luck it's a bad management strategy (I'd rate any shares involved a Sell ).

Agreed. But then again a lot of our economical system is based on such assumptions. People are rewarded or punished for actual happenings that had nothing to do with their "predictions" (guessings). Are we a gamblers society?

Warren Buffet hasn't just been a lucky guesser. He has made rational informed predictions that have consistently proved right. That involves some work in getting to understand, and be well-informed of, the subject in hand.

I dont see how. If we dont have a way to distinguish who is making the informed preditions and who is not we are to the mercy of fortune (so to speak).

It might be nice to think that every prediction is a guess so any labour invested would be wasted, but the truth is it ain't so.

Which truth? your guessed one, or mine

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

And your point is . . . what exactly is your point?

Arguments over the meanings of words are ridiculous. Pick up a dictionary, read the meaning and we'll use that one. The only thing that matters is the idea the words are conveying.

I would like you to explain which kind of ideas are not based on language. As I see it, ideas are made with words, and no, dictionary doesnt help unless we are discussing what we will have for dinner.

Discussing worldviews and epistemology is another thing.

 

[qayak]

I would like you to explain which kind of ideas are not based on language. As I see it, ideas are made with words, and no, dictionary doesnt help unless we are discussing what we will have for dinner.

Discussing worldviews and epistemology is another thing.

Ideas come first and then language is used to express those ideas to other people. The idea is not based on language, only the expression of the idea.

I like what Richard Feynman had to say on this. To paraphrase, "If you can't explain your ideas simply enough for the average person to understand, you don't know what you are talking about." He would simply state that hte words he was using could be found in any dictionary and that he was using this common definition of them. If he wanted to be clearer, he gave you the specific definition he was using out of the dictionary.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

For all intents and purposes the Earth is round. Or are we looking to argue over this and say it is an oblate sheroid?

For the purpose of saying that the sun rises? for the purpose of navigating a city with GPS? for the purpose of teaching "the truth" on the school? What about an hypercomplex fractal?

Have you noticed, for example, how primitive and simple are the geometry shapes we can name? The earth is FAR from being round, yet, thats accepted as a "truth".

Gravity is still being worked on. It appears as a force. If you were to view it as a distortion, you would have to ask yourself what force is acting on the medium to cause the distortion?

No force required, space time distortion is the effect of mass. I guess a better question is if gravity is a cause (of atracting masses) or a result of such distortion. This, BTW, leads us to another problem. Often, the words we use to describe what we see as "the problem" also define it, circumscribing the possible answer in a way that determines the outcome.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Ideas come first and then language is used to express those ideas to other people. The idea is not based on language, only the expression of the idea.

Platon anyone? I think this is a matter of argumentation. I believe that what we call ideas are like small impulses, maybe something like instincts, but nothing more. If anything, simple, small actions can be lead by thinking without language (so to speak).

Still, I find it difficult to see as "language less ideas" the complex abstract thinking like the one is required to talk about science, theories, worldviews and epistemology.

 

[CapelDodger]

But what is really behind such a rational, informed prediction? In the market analysts example, usually the one who made that informed prediction is only picked out when what he/she said actually happened. What kind of prediction is this? Sounds like a religious one.

It's precisely and exactly unlike a religious prediction. That would be based on, say, the shape of goose livers or the arrangements of letters in the KJV. What is behind rational, informed prediction is an understanding of the business in hand, knowledge of the circumstances, and the application of their reason and perspicacity. If the business in hand is of practical value and accurate prediction correlates positively with more of the value coming to hand, the ability to make consistently accurate predictions will be noticed. (So, of course, will snake-oil salesmen consultants and philosophers but that's a different matter entirely.)

Yes. By definition. But this is also an ad hoc hypotesis.

You've really got it bad, haven't you? I don't think even I can pull you out.

My point is that, if we dont have a way to assert who is right until the actual fact happens, then no body is never right, but, again, just guessing.

It's trivially true that nobody's never right. I guess.

If we assume the "it's a typo" hypothesis, I have been right many times and basked in the pleasure. These were accurate non-concensus predictions based on my knowledge, understanding and perspicacity. They weren't guesses. I'd get a lot of pleasure out of winning millions in a lottery, but it wouldn't be that kind of pleasure. Vindication. Nothing like it. I love to say "I told you so".

You can understand why the Tantric realm of philosophy isn't for me.

Agreed. But then again a lot of our economical system is based on such assumptions. People are rewarded or punished for actual happenings that had nothing to do with their "predictions" (guessings). Are we a gamblers society?

Not at the top end, no. There's a gambler society amongst the plebs, no doubt about that. There's two kinds of people - gamblers and bookies. Bookies are always right. Building Las Vegas was no gamble.

I dont see how. If we dont have a way to distinguish who is making the informed preditions and who is not we are to the mercy of fortune (so to speak).

Follow the money. See where it is? Mostly in the families and institutions it's been in for centuries. That's how you distinguish. A serious track record.

Were we ruled by philosophers we would indeed be children of the 'B' Ark, insubstantial, toy of lumpen contingency. Rule by philosopher, rather than practical types, has been tried and found wanting in the longevity department.

Which truth? your guessed one, or mine

It's no guess. It's based on observation, and not just my own, although there's plenty of that. I didn't get where and who I am today by debating a tiger's right to eat me. There is a truth and it bites. Unless you ride it.

 

[qayak]

The earth is FAR from being round, yet, thats accepted as a "truth".

No it's not. Back in the day when it was impossible to measure, they said the Earth was round. We know now that it isn't exactly round but for most practical purposes it can be viewed as round. When it becomes necessary to see it otherwise, the true shape of the Earth is used.

I do believe we have already been over this with Newton and Einstein.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

No it's not. Back in the day when it was impossible to measure, they said the Earth was round. We know now that it isn't exactly round but for most practical purposes it can be viewed as round. When it becomes necessary to see it otherwise, the true shape of the Earth is used.

Two things capture my attention here:

1) "for most practical purposes it can be viewed as round"

2) "the true shape of the Earth is used"

I would say that both are more related that what is obvious at first sight. I would say also that I consider both afirmations as speculations (from an objective, non partial or "truer" point of view).

I agree with point 1, I tend to be a "Wittgenstenian" in that sense. For "practical purposes" we believe or take for granted, a lot of things, like that the sun "rises". But this does not imply any commitment with a particular worldview.

The second one is more tricky. It appears to me that the "true shape" would be that only for certain points of view. Its shape is not something "inherent" to the earth, but a subproduct of our use of it, so to speak.

Mandelbrot would have a different perspective regarding shapes, for example, and I tend to agree in that, if anything, the "truer" shape of earth (so far) its an hypercomplex fractal, not a sphere.

 

[drkitten]

For example, what can you say about if the earth is flat or round?

In my idiolect, "round" does not mean "spherical." Lemons and eggs are round, for example.

I have no qualms about saying that the statement "the earth is round" is absolutely 100% true.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I have no qualms about saying that the statement "the earth is round" is absolutely 100% true.

Which is exactly the point. We can't assure which is the "true shape of earth" because the question is always related to a context and even to a certain use.

Does it make sense, even in principle, to ask for its "true shape"?

 

[drkitten]

Does it make sense, even in principle, to ask for its "true shape"?

Yes. What doesn't make sense is for you to expect any finite expression to capture the exact true shape.

Consider an oval. The true shape of an oval is "oval." But "oval" is underspecified; there are several different, non-congruent, dissimilar, shapes that can equally be described as "oval."

Language categorizes, it does not specify. But it's easily possible and meaningful for a categorization to be right or wrong, in principle or in practice.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Yes. What doesn't make sense is for you to expect any finite expression to capture the exact true shape.

Consider an oval. The true shape of an oval is "oval." But "oval" is underspecified; there are several different, non-congruent, dissimilar, shapes that can equally be described as "oval."

Language categorizes, it does not specify. But it's easily possible and meaningful for a categorization to be right or wrong, in principle or in practice.

I like that about finite expressions. That said, do you believe that the meaning of a categorization is then relative to its finitude? And if this is correct under what parameters can we say that it is right or wrong?

Take for intance the example about being in a room or outside a room. Of course the answer seems trivial at first sight. But when, exactly, are you in or out? If I cross the door up to 49.9999% of my mass and... oh well, I guess you can see my point.