Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A discussion on weighing up two sides of an argument

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

    We're in the area of philosophy and logic actually. Discussing the formalities of logical reasoning no more hampers free speech than learning how to use a hammer hinders building things out of wood.

    It's not something that comes up in typical conversations, but logical reasoning is a structured activity and some people like to know and explore how the tools they use work. It's not if interest to some, but it's not about controlling free speech in any way. Rather, the opposite, because people are free to say what they want, how should the rational observer evaluate what they are told? How do we logically change our beliefs based upon what we have been told, etc.

    - Jeff
    I am fine if it is optional, but to state you expect everybody to abide by this context on every thread going forward, is to me an infringement of my free speech. If the board owners endorse this policy then it will drive people away, which I'm guessing would suit some. I for one will not sign up to those terms.

    Those who wish to engage in such activities as an optional pursuit should be free to do so, as should those who do not.

    There is always room for theories or we wouldn't have understood gravity, quantum physics or most major scientific breakthrough there has been in the past 100 years.

    You said truth is binary and that's a good analogy. If you reduce all you see to zeroes and ones then all you see is a series of zeroes and ones.
    Last edited by erobitha; 04-02-2021, 02:12 PM.
    "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
    - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

    Comment


    • #32
      We understand gravity due to experimentation, the results of which produce factual data, this data is the basis for theories.
      That is a good example of how the process is supposed to work - facts come before theories.
      Last edited by Wickerman; 04-02-2021, 02:41 PM.
      Regards, Jon S.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

        What are the odds?
        lol. good one
        "Is all that we see or seem
        but a dream within a dream?"

        -Edgar Allan Poe


        "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
        quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

        -Frederick G. Abberline

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by erobitha View Post
          .... If the board owners endorse this policy then it will drive people away, which I'm guessing would suit some. I for one will not sign up to those terms.
          No worries, it is never going to happen. In all the years I've been a member of Casebook, JTRForums, & others, I have always been fascinated by how people reach their conclusions.

          Some just argue for the sake of argument, others join in on one side because they don't like the other person posting the argument, nothing to do with a factual debate, it's just 'circling the wagons'.
          Others have a completely wrong understanding of the facts but they will not back down, they draw a line in the sand and they defend their position to the death, they refuse to be seen to have been wrong.

          How many times have you read where a poster writes: "oh, I didn't know that, if that is the case it changes everything"?
          Practically never right?

          If the witnesses present all say the mortuary piece & the G.S. piece, when put together, made an apron, then the apron was in two pieces - that's the end of it.

          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
            We understand gravity due to experimentation, the results of which produce factual data, this data is the basis for theories.
            That is a good example of how the process is supposed to work - facts come before theories.
            Hi Wickerman

            Actually, often the opposite is true, theory precedes evidence - evidence is then sought that supports or challenges the theory until we reach a point where the theory is accepted, refined or discarded. For example, there is a theory (Einstein's general theory of relativity) that allows for wormholes to form - no-one has yet found a wormhole. Nevertheless the theory stands until it can be proved, refined or discounted and some scientists are actively trying to find wormholes to prove the theory.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by erobitha View Post

              I am fine if it is optional, but to state you expect everybody to abide by this context on every thread going forward, is to me an infringement of my free speech. If the board owners endorse this policy then it will drive people away, which I'm guessing would suit some. I for one will not sign up to those terms.

              Those who wish to engage in such activities as an optional pursuit should be free to do so, as should those who do not.

              There is always room for theories or we wouldn't have understood gravity, quantum physics or most major scientific breakthrough there has been in the past 100 years.

              You said truth is binary and that's a good analogy. If you reduce all you see to zeroes and ones then all you see is a series of zeroes and ones.
              I don't think I said people had to be logical and rational, only that discussion might not stall as often if we were. But everyone has the right to choose how they present their case, be it through reason, sophistry, or makeing things up. But, I would suggest that if we wish to learn than some approaches are more suited than others, while if we just want to be free to say what ever we want, be it true or false, rational or not, then a no holds barred approach is fine.

              Anyway, it was an idea for a thread topic on the underlying aspects of how arguments work logically.
              Examening one's tools doesn't tell you how to use them, but it might improve one's skills. I thought there might be interest. Clearly I was wrong.


              A statement is either true or it is not true. A theory is only true if all of its statements are true.
              otherwise it requires revision. While some view such things as mostly true, or partly true, they formally boil down into a mix of true or false building blocks.

              ​​​​​​It's complexity from simplicity.

              - Jeff
              Last edited by JeffHamm; 04-02-2021, 06:26 PM.

              Comment


              • #37
                Hi Jeff


                In your OP you tend to frame the discussion as one of probability. Personally, I do not find probablity very interesting in most historical arguments, because either something happened or it did not. You might consider that simplistic, but really, that's what it boils down to. The problem is that some posters here have a hard time accepting that we sometimes have too little information to accurately determine what happened or what did not happen.

                Probability, in the form of general knowledge about Victorian society, can in some cases help us determine whether some arguments are valid, e.g. the high literacy rate can at least falsify the theory that JtR could not have written letters or the GSG (because a high lteracy rate would mean the killer had a high probablity of being literate).

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by etenguy View Post

                  Hi Wickerman

                  Actually, often the opposite is true, theory precedes evidence - evidence is then sought that supports or challenges the theory until we reach a point where the theory is accepted, refined or discarded. For example, there is a theory (Einstein's general theory of relativity) that allows for wormholes to form - no-one has yet found a wormhole. Nevertheless the theory stands until it can be proved, refined or discounted and some scientists are actively trying to find wormholes to prove the theory.
                  Ah, just a minute.
                  Physics is more conjecture than theory. This is why I did not respond to the second point offered by erobitha, that of quantum physics - a whole different ball game.
                  With physics we have to speculate to explain the natural world, I mean we all know about atoms and the nucleus, it's all theory (conjecture), because no-one (as far as I know?) has ever seen an atom, or a nucleus, yet equally no-one would ever argue they don't exist.

                  This is not the same as a tangible force like Gravity that can be tested.
                  Also, Relativity encapsulates a number of topics, but one specifically Gravity can be tested, from tests we can obtain data (facts). This data (facts) can be interpreted a number of ways.
                  Each way is a separate theory, but only one theory can be correct.
                  This isn't my field so I don't choose to go too far into the fog on this topic.
                  That said, I thought, In Search of Schrodinger's Cat, by John Gribbin, was an amazing (as in 'mind-bending') book.
                  Regards, Jon S.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                    .....A statement is either true or it is not true. A theory is only true if all of its statements are true.
                    otherwise it requires revision. While some view such things as mostly true, or partly true, they formally boil down into a mix of true or false building blocks.
                    Years back, like in the late 90's, I was on a forum with a NASA scientist. The groups ended up on this topic of what is Theory and what is Speculation, and how we arrive at 'truth'.

                    See if I can remember how it was explained.
                    - A Theory is one interpretation of a set of facts.
                    - One fact does not make a Theory.
                    - Each fact must be provable.
                    - There can be many interpretations of the same group of facts, but only one interpretation (the Theory) is the correct one.
                    - If you have 10 facts (an arbitrary number) on any subject, the resultant interpretation is a Theory. However..
                    - If one of those facts turns out to be incorrect, the resultant Theory is now mere Speculation.
                    - It only takes one false fact to degrade a Theory into Speculation.

                    So, where we read of theorists who have a Jack the Ripper suspect, just be aware you need evidence comprised of a set of facts. And each fact must be provable, for you to have a genuine Theory, otherwise what you have is just fantasy (Speculation).




                    Regards, Jon S.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Define fact,if you would.

                      I have over 20 points that support an extremely strong case based on circumstantial evidence, and have absolutely no doubt that Henry Gawen Sutton was Jack the Ripper.

                      Under criminal law that would suffice for a trial,except he's already dead.

                      Also have a strong case that there was a cover up at high levels,including police and at least one politician.
                      Last edited by DJA; 04-03-2021, 02:46 AM.
                      My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
                        Hi Jeff


                        In your OP you tend to frame the discussion as one of probability. Personally, I do not find probablity very interesting in most historical arguments, because either something happened or it did not. You might consider that simplistic, but really, that's what it boils down to. The problem is that some posters here have a hard time accepting that we sometimes have too little information to accurately determine what happened or what did not happen.

                        Probability, in the form of general knowledge about Victorian society, can in some cases help us determine whether some arguments are valid, e.g. the high literacy rate can at least falsify the theory that JtR could not have written letters or the GSG (because a high lteracy rate would mean the killer had a high probablity of being literate).
                        We have more than enough information.

                        Look at Eddowes' murder and GSG.
                        My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
                          Hi Jeff


                          In your OP you tend to frame the discussion as one of probability. Personally, I do not find probablity very interesting in most historical arguments, because either something happened or it did not. You might consider that simplistic, but really, that's what it boils down to. The problem is that some posters here have a hard time accepting that we sometimes have too little information to accurately determine what happened or what did not happen.

                          Probability, in the form of general knowledge about Victorian society, can in some cases help us determine whether some arguments are valid, e.g. the high literacy rate can at least falsify the theory that JtR could not have written letters or the GSG (because a high lteracy rate would mean the killer had a high probablity of being literate).
                          Hi Kattrup,

                          Ok, first I want to separate the notion of the events that actually happened. Those are the true events, and as you say, something either happened or it did not.

                          Now, whether or not we are trying to understand a case from an hour ago or 133 years ago, we have to work from evidence and try and work out what happened. What we end up with, though, is a belief in what happened, not the original truth ( we don't recreate the past in a literal sense after all ). Unlike truth, belief can be distributed ( I believe X more than y and y more than z, type things). They total our total belief.

                          Our beliefs can change as new evidence or arguments get presented then our beliefs should track towards the true events, though we can never end up there because the unprovable statement (but what if that evidence is wrong) always exists. Bit as more evidence piles up, that type of argument becomes weaker. Probability is used to illustrate the idea, where probabilities represent the strength of the evidence (so just saying "maybe they lied" is weak evidence against, and corroboration of a statement adds strength to the initial claim ).

                          ​​​​​​So, it is not truth as a probability, but rather probabilities are often used to either indicate how we should rationally distribute our belief, or to illustrate the notion of how belief should be distributed.

                          I.e. if I said JtR's birthday was June 3, and offered nothing as support, then I'm as good as guessing, so I have 1 / 365 chance of being correct. If my theory hinged on that being true, you could say the odds are so against it 364:1 against, that you would say it could be rejected, even though I argue "but it could be June 3"... Sure, it's not 0, but to believe it is irrational. If I end up finding something that pointed to June 3 as JtR birthday and started piling up the evidence, belief should start to increase - beliefs can change.

                          So, true events are not probabilities, but we can only ever get to truth by our belief system. It can be wrong (we can strongly believe something that is false, but evidence, even weak evidence, should operate to shift our beliefs towards true explanations and beliefs).
                          -Jeff

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by DJA View Post
                            Define fact,if you would.
                            I'm almost certain you'll be well aware what the definition of a 'fact' is.

                            I have over 20 points that support an extremely strong case based on circumstantial evidence,....
                            It is rare for a murderer to be caught in the act, so most police cases rely strongly on circumstantial evidence, but even circumstantial evidence must be factual.

                            ...and have absolutely no doubt that Henry Gawen Sutton was Jack the Ripper.
                            I'm sure you do, aren't most theorists convinced by their own conclusions?

                            Under criminal law that would suffice for a trial,except he's already dead.
                            You're in a better position to judge than I am.

                            Also have a strong case that there was a cover up at high levels,including police and at least one politician.
                            Interesting, I notice the 'cover up' is quite popular in JtR theories.
                            Have I posted anything you take issue with?
                            Regards, Jon S.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              4/1461
                              My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                                I'm almost certain you'll be well aware what the definition of a 'fact' is.

                                Interesting, I notice the 'cover up' is quite popular in JtR theories.
                                Have I posted anything you take issue with?
                                I meant "fact" in the circumstances we are discussing.

                                Not really.Quite unpopular here.

                                Certainly not. I respect your views and usually agree with them.In fact most of your "likes" are mine.
                                My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X