This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Why Americans can't speak (or write in) English properly.
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
Except the fact that it's your judgement (as opposed to
uncontroversible
uncontrovertible facts), and therefore biased by your views.
Edit: spelling is awful today
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
A judgment is only biased if the premises that lead to that judgment themselves are biased.
Judgment = taking a universal and applying it to a particular case.
Post by
Squishalot
Have you checked the definition of bias? I don't have a reputed dictionary on hand, but the first three links in Google are:
Bias is a term used to describe a tendency or preference towards a particular perspective, ideology or result, when the tendency interferes with the ability to be impartial, unprejudiced, or objective.
a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice.
A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment.
You think you know all there is to need to know about basketball to make the judgement. That premise is biased, as it prevents you from coming to an impartial conclusion not reliant on what you think, and only on incontrovertible facts. Therefore, your judgement is biased.
(How on earth I butchered 'incontrovertible' before is beyond me...)
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
You think you know all there is to need to know about basketball to make the judgment.
Yes. I do. I played it in middle school for 3 years and high school for 4 years. I've been watching college and professional for ~15.
You thinking that I don't know basketball, is an assumption and a stupid one to base your entire argument on.
I don't know what you hoped to accomplish with those quotes. They all, especially the third one, agree with what I said right above them.
Maybe your problem is that you think people can't know things. People can know things, and just because
they
know it, doesn't then make it subjective.
Post by
Squishalot
Because you can't put down your premises in writing and come to a logical, incontrovertible judgement/conclusion. At the end of the day, your judgement is nothing more than your opinion, which is inherently biased by your beliefs.
Judgment = taking a universal and applying it to a particular case.
To show that he is above the median, you must demonstrate that his performance against every possible opponent yields a greater shot % than 50%.
All you need to know is the act (sport) itself, and you can make any judgments you want.
You're making a judgement you want, rather than demonstrating the judgement incontrovertibly. Your 'universal' is your opinion. Your opinion is, by definition, biased.
I don't think that you don't know basketball. You know more about basketball than I do, I have little doubt. I just think that you're arrogant to believe that you know enough about basketball to be capable of ascertaining whether a player can make a shot in an infinite list of possible situations.
If you know enough of the sport then, you should be able to explain how you came to that conclusion, which is what I asked you a few posts ago. Instead, you're stamping your foot down and saying that you know it all, and that should be enough. I'd call it an argument from authority, but I don't think you know enough about basketball to be considered an authority.
Consider the following argument.
Squishalot: "I know people. I've worked with a variety of people over the years, from multiple countries / continents, and I know what they're like. I think you're an arrogant prick, because you're more than 50% arrogant and prickish.
Oh, you want me to prove it? Well, I know people, and I'm not comparing you to others, I'm comparing you to the universal standard, an absolute. All I need to know is people, and I can make any judgement I want.
Oh, you think I'm biased? No, because I'm comparing you to the universal standard, I'm not biased."
That's what your argument sounds like so far. See how it's fallacious?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I can't "prove" to you that my brother is good as basketball. You a) don't have any knowledge of my brother's basketball skill and b) as you admitted don't know enough about basketball. The only way of proving it to you would be for you to learn enough about basketball, and then study my brother's skills. Then, you'd form the judgment yourself.
You're making a judgement you want, rather than demonstrating the judgment incontrovertibly.
Uh, no I'm not. I don't like getting schooled by him when we play one-on-one. Again, I'll echo you and say I find it very arrogant on your part that you assume to know me enough to make the judgment that I don't know enough about basketball (see, two can play at this game).
Basketball is a finite, determined creation, and as such is knowable.
Consider the following argument.
Squishalot: "I know people. I've worked with a variety of people over the years, from multiple countries / continents, and I know what they're like. I think you're an arrogant prick, because you're more than 50% arrogant and prickish.
Oh, you want me to prove it? Well, I know people, and I'm not comparing you to others, I'm comparing you to the universal standard, an absolute.
All I need to know is people, and I can make any judgement I want.
Oh, you think I'm biased? No, because I'm comparing you to the universal standard, I'm not biased."
That's what your argument sounds like so far. See how it's fallacious?
Bolded part is where your example falls apart.
Post by
Orranis
Meh, the problem with this argument is that it's about fundamentals of the universe, so neither one of you can see it from the others side.
I can see it from his side, I just think it's wrong ;p
I mean, he's arguing that block% is a suitable non-relative, objective measure of basketball skill. How on earth is block% non-relative? How is shot% non-relative, other than free shots? Who does he think the player is playing against, a universal machine?
Hyper's overall argument is so contradictory on so many levels. I'm just trying to pick them down one at a time.
And I agree. I've been on your side this whole time. I think it's a very nurtured point of view. Possibly a product of being Religious, where you have a very set-in-stone guidelines of what is good and what is not, as well as the fact that one would have no doubt that there is a perfect being, which has lead on to other subjects.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
And I agree. I've been on your side this whole time. I think it's a very nurtured point of view. Possibly a product of being Religious, where you have a very set-in-stone guidelines of what is good and what is not, as well as the fact that one would have no doubt that there is a perfect being, which has lead on to other subjects.
And I think blaming everything on religion is a very nurtured point of view also.
There, we're even.
Post by
Orranis
And I agree. I've been on your side this whole time. I think it's a very nurtured point of view. Possibly a product of being Religious, where you have a very set-in-stone guidelines of what is good and what is not, as well as the fact that one would have no doubt that there is a perfect being, which has lead on to other subjects.
And I think blaming everything on religion is a very nurtured point of view also.
There, we're even.
Blame would be a correct word, but I think you're taking it as if it were way more hostile then intended. The difference is basically that you are sure there is such thing as perfection, because you can name something that is perfect. I am still undecided on whether a cosmic sentient being exists, and even after that if it's perfect. So naturally, we would see the world differently.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
The difference is basically that you are sure there is such thing as perfection, because you can name something that is perfect
I'm not sure where you pulled this from.
Have I mentioned God once in this discussion?
Post by
Squishalot
I can't "prove" to you that my brother is good as basketball.
You should be able to, or at least, be able to demonstrate why your theorem is correct.
The only way of proving it to you would be for you to learn enough about basketball, and then study my brother's skills. Then, you'd form the judgment yourself.
I'd form an opinion, based on seeing your brother play a limited pool. It's still biased, relative to an absolute.
I don't like getting schooled by him when we play one-on-one.
That's not relevant to the discussion, nor is it a demonstration of an unbiased judgement.
Again, I'll echo you and say I find it very arrogant on your part that you assume to know me enough to make the judgment that I don't know enough about basketball (see, two can play at this game).
Why? Even if there was one person who knows the most (relative) about basketball on the planet who was able to make unbiased judgements such as those that you're making, there's a 1 in 6 billion chance that you're that person. Probability is on my side in making that assumption.
All you need to know is the act (sport) itself, and you can make any judgments you want.
All I need to know is people, and I can make any judgement I want.
'People', being the understanding of the psychology of humans, not 'a number of people', much the same way that you would know the sport of basketball, not the numerous games you've seen/played in/studied. The example still holds.
Post by
Squishalot
And I agree. I've been on your side this whole time. I think it's a very nurtured point of view. Possibly a product of being Religious, where you have a very set-in-stone guidelines of what is good and what is not, as well as the fact that one would have no doubt that there is a perfect being, which has lead on to other subjects.
Lol, where did that come from?
I've actually been having a discussion about that (the set-in-stone guidelines of what is good/not) with my girlfriend's Catholic father recently - about whether the Catholic faith is aimed at the less-than-educated group of people who 'need' a structure and framework in order to pray and worship God. It explains the prevalance of the Catholic denomination of Christianity in developing and 3rd world countries, relative to other denominations (say compared to Australia, where there's a 45/45/10 split between Catholicis/Anglicans/others).
(And Hyper - before you blast me on that, the theory is my girlfriend's father's view, not mine. It appears he's a much more liberal Catholic than I previously thought he was.)
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
You should be able to, or at least, be able to demonstrate why your theorem is correct.
How can I demonstrate the validity of the statement "
Gabriel
(my brother) is good at
basketball
" when you don't
know
the two underlined things?
Only once you know those things can you make a judgment. And if you know those things objectively, then you know the whole as objective.
'People', being the understanding of the psychology of humans, not 'a number of people', much the same way that you would know the sport of basketball, not the numerous games you've seen/played in/studied. The example still holds.
No. In your example, the objective absolute in questions is that of arrogance, not of people. If you understand what arrogance is absolutely, then you can make valid judgments about particular cases.
Post by
Orranis
The difference is basically that you are sure there is such thing as perfection, because you can name something that is perfect
I'm not sure where you pulled this from.
Have I mentioned God once in this discussion?
I was venturing into why we see things differently, not attacking your point of view or your arguments. To me, perfection is still a concept. To you, it's clearly possible. That's why we probably won't agree on this anytime soon.
Post by
Squishalot
How can I demonstrate the validity of the statement "Gabriel (my brother) is good at basketball" when you don't know the two underlined things?
Only once you know those things can you make a judgment. And if you know those things objectively, then you know the whole as objective.
You can demonstrate your methodology.
No. In your example, the objective absolute in questions is that of arrogance, not of people. If you understand what arrogance is absolutely, then you can make valid judgments about particular cases.
Arrogance is a trait demonstrated by people, just as shooting hoops is a part of basketball. I don't need to know anything about arrogance outside of people, much as you don't need to know anything about shooting netball hoops to make your argument. I only need to know as much about arrogance as it is associated with people.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
To you, it's clearly possible.
I never said that either.
Arrogance is a trait demonstrated by people, just as shooting hoops is a part of basketball. I don't need to know anything about arrogance outside of people, much as you don't need to know anything about shooting netball hoops to make your argument. I only need to know as much about arrogance as it is associated with people.
Did you forget your argument?
"HSR is arrogant."
You're way off on your comparison.
Post by
Squishalot
Did you forget your argument?
"HSR is arrogant."
You're way off on your comparison.
Unless you're not a person, I'm still on track. I never denied my own arrogance/ego, and I never pretended not to be arrogant ;p
I'm still presenting your own argument to you, but instead of saying "Gabriel is good at shooting, and subsequently good at basketball", I'm saying "HSR is arrogant, and subsequently, an arrogant person".
Well, I used 'prick' to start off with, but the point still stands :) I can narrow it down by saying "all I need to know is arrogance in relation to pricks" if it makes you feel any better?
Post by
Orranis
Did you forget your argument?
"HSR is arrogant."
You're way off on your comparison.
Unless you're not a person, I'm still on track. I never denied my own arrogance/ego, and I never pretended not to be arrogant ;p
I'm still presenting your own argument to you, but instead of saying "Gabriel is good at shooting, and subsequently good at basketball", I'm saying "HSR is arrogant, and subsequently, an arrogant person".
Well, I used 'prick' to start off with, but the point still stands :) I can narrow it down by saying "all I need to know is arrogance in relation to pricks" if it makes you feel any better?
While I generally agree, there's a flaw.
HSR says that his brother is good, which he defined as makes >50%.
You're not specifying how arrogant HSR is.
Post by
Squishalot
Well, there's arrogant, and there's not arrogant. Using a similar definition to his 'good', I'd say that if you're >50% of as arrogant as you could possibly be, then you're arrogant?
Irrespective of how many people are actually that arrogant, of course. And I shouldn't need to define all the different possible degrees of arrogance that could exist, other than to say that they do exist, and that Hyper is >50% of them, following his argument.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
If I were the only person in the universe would that change my status as arrogant? No. Does the concept of "arrogant people" even need to enter the picture? No.
What
do
you need to know to make that judgment? Well, you need to know me, first of all. Now, for the sake of the example we'll just assume you do. You also need to know what arrogance is. Now, you
could
go find a really arrogant person, point at him as say 'look, this guy is arrogant.' The you'd proceed to compare him to me to determine if I am arrogant too. However, as I already stated, whether or not anyone else exists in the universe has no effect on whether I'm arrogant or not. So, for you to use that other person as a standard of judgment concerning my arrogance is relative and in fact biased.
So how do you determine whether I am arrogant or not? You discover what arrogance is, absolutely -- in and of itself. You want to say that we can't do that, that we can't know arrogance apart from people. I say we can. To make an analogy (that makes it an analogy of an analogy of an analogy, I guess) -- take size. Do you know the concept of a foot (er...um,
metre
)? I assume you do. If you see a stick that is about a metre long, how can you possibly make a judgment about its size unless you know
metre
? You can say without a doubt (if you really know metre) that the stick is 1 metre long give or take a couple
inches
centimetres (of course, that give or take is necessary due to not knowing the stick fully).
So, what does all this mean? Judgments can only be made unbiasedly if one is judging from an absolute.
And I shouldn't need to define all the different possible degrees of arrogance that could exist, other than to say that they do exist, and that Hyper is >50% of them, following his argument.
I really like a word you used in here.
Degree.
What is a degree? I'm going to butcher this definition, but you should get the concept. It's 1/360th of a line's angle with itself.
Now obviously, you're using degree in a slightly different context, but it's the same principle -- a degree is a part of a whole. You cannot understand, nor measure, nor recreate, nor judge a degree without knowledge of an reference to the whole which defines the degree.
So my arrogance fall at a certain degree. But you can't know that degree without reference to the whole. What is the whole? Arrogance absolutely.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.