• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Date's Incoherence Principle

scribble

Master Poster
S
Joined
Nov 16, 2001
Messages
2,687
I'll let you have all the fun, do a google search.

One of the most JREF-applicable memes I've encountered in years.

Okay, I'll admit it, I only encourage you to search because I see it stated many different ways. Here's one:

Date's Incoherence Principle
It is difficult to treat coherently that which is incoherent.
Click to expand...

Sometimes I see difficult replaced with impossible, and I sometimes see other qualifiers on there. The idea, though, is powerful, and seemingly true.

The JREF has taught me that much, the hard way. I keep trying. At some point I should decide it's Dave's Incoherence Law and give up.
 
And yet, what may be incoherent to one, might be totally coherent to another. So, how do you define that which is incoherent?
 
Iacchus said:
And yet, what may be incoherent to one, might be totally coherent to another. So, how do you define that which is incoherent?
Click to expand...

You, my funky little friend, have been incoherent at least once today.

But that's okay. It's not you I'm talking about here. I'm talking about people who's noise-to-signal ratio is just riding the edge between reasonable sentences and random babble with some key phrases thrown in for the *illusion* of coherence.

Like just about any crank on the JREF who tries to talk about math.

(Just Geoff, Ian, Pupcos, the list goes on and on...)
 
It's easy to spot the incoherent. They often start sentences with the word 'and'.
 
"And," what makes either of you "qualified" to say? ;) Is it possible I may have missed someone's sense of absoluteness somewhere?

By the way, there's no such thing as right and wrong, right?
 
Iacchus said:
"And," what makes either of you "qualified" to say? ;) Is it possible I may have missed someone's sense of absoluteness somewhere?

By the way, there's no such thing as right and wrong, right?
Click to expand...

Again, Iacchus, I'm mainly talking about those who profess to know mathematics.

And in mathematics, there's definately valid and invalid - or right and wrong if you prefer.
 
scribble said:

But that's okay. It's not you I'm talking about here. I'm talking about people who's noise-to-signal ratio is just riding the edge between reasonable sentences and random babble with some key phrases thrown in for the *illusion* of coherence.
Click to expand...
Have heard the same thing about me by the way, case in point, the reference directly above.


Again, Iacchus, I'm mainly talking about those who profess to know mathematics.

And in mathematics, there's definately valid and invalid - or right and wrong if you prefer.
Click to expand...
Yes, and what were you trying to tell me awhile back about 1 + 1 = 2? ;)
 
Iacchus said:
Yes, and what were you trying to tell me awhile back about 1 + 1 = 2? ;)
Click to expand...

That in mathematics, that is not always true. To say it is always true is simply wrong.

And that's why math is so cool. There are things that are definately valid and invalid - or right and wrong if you prefer.
 
Hm, coherence. Some things hang together but don't make sense, some make sense but don't hang together. But selfcontradiction is always fatal.
 
Math trolls can be pretty fun. I remember hearing someone try to argue that pi is exactly equal to 256/81. Or you can just play around with Xeno's paradox for a while.
 
Mathematical vs. linguistic incoherence

Math is too beautiful to tolerate incoherence, hence its uselessness to the woohoo crowd.

Incoherent language is another matter. One test for coherence that you can apply is to ask for a paraphrase, i.e., ask the speaker to "say it in different words." If a statement can't be paraphrased, you can say that it lacks meaning, that is, it's incoherent. A rational speaker, seeing that, will retire to a corner to tinker with his words -- and, more importantly, his ideas -- to see if they can be reworked to make sense. (How many of us actually behave that way? Well . . . .)
 
Re: Mathematical vs. linguistic incoherence

sackett said:

Incoherent language is another matter. One test for coherence that you can apply is to ask for a paraphrase, i.e., ask the speaker to "say it in different words." If a statement can't be paraphrased, you can say that it lacks meaning, that is, it's incoherent. A rational speaker, seeing that, will retire to a corner to tinker with his words -- and, more importantly, his ideas -- to see if they can be reworked to make sense. (How many of us actually behave that way? Well . . . .)
Click to expand...

I totally agree. When discussing, I often attempt to paraphrase the others position to see if I understand it. It's amazing how many times the only response I get is that I'm totally out to lunch or that I'm misrepresenting their position, only to be fed the same lines as before with no explanation of where I went wrong.

Next time I'll try your tactic of getting them to paraphrase their own position.

Personally, I try to avoid saying the same thing in the same way over and over again. Rephrasing is good if for no other reason then to make a discussion more interesting to read.

Personally, I try to avoid saying the same thing in the same way over and over again. Rephrasing is good if for no other reason then to make a discussion more interesting to read.
 
Say it again only different

I disagree, even though you agreed with me. I think it makes a discussion more interesting if you rephrase instead of saying the same thing over and over in the same words.
 
Re: Say it again only different

sackett said:
I disagree, even though you agreed with me. I think it makes a discussion more interesting if you rephrase instead of saying the same thing over and over in the same words.
Click to expand...

Is this just referring to my little mix-up with writing the same line twice? It was humorous timing for such a mistake, I must admit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom