Re: The Psychology of Responding to Crackpots
From: Acme Diagnostics (LFinezapthis_at_partpostmark.net)
Date: 07/11/04
- Next message: Poker Joker: "Re: Can you find anything wrong with this solution to the Halting Problem?"
- Previous message: Acme Diagnostics: "Re: The Psychology of Responding to Crackpots"
- In reply to: Peter Olcott: "Re: The Psychology of Responding to Crackpots"
- Next in thread: Peter Olcott: "Re: The Psychology of Responding to Crackpots"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 10 Jul 2004 20:46:53 -0500
"Peter Olcott" <olcott@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>"Acme Diagnostics" <LFinezapthis@partpostmark.net> wrote in message
>news:40ef9510$0$92936$45beb828@newscene.com...
I did a little editing on this one. Mooch shorter.
>> "Peter Olcott" <olcott@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >I don't know. Perhaps it might seem that I am hypercritical.
>> >The common usage of the term idiot is not the literal one.
>> >One thing that I do know, is that the more freedom that
>> >permitted in taking meanings from terms, and sentences
>> >the greater the degree of error exists in taking this meaning.
>> >Idioms, and idiomatic expressions don't tend to do much
>> >more than make communication less accurate.
>>
>> There's a famous kook in comp.ai.philosophy who has a
>> similar language dogma, but his delivery is light-years more polished
>> than yours and his dogma is much more polished as well. His ritual
>> phrases are "intensional," "extensional," and "folk psychology" which
>> roughly translates as "your language is unreliable" (meaning
>> everyone's language but his of course). He's gotten incredible trolling
>> mileage from just repeating those many thousands of times in the last 8
>> years, constantly, easily demonstrable with google counts. He has
>> single-handedly destroyed that group for all practical purposes, a
>> fact well-known by nearly all including at least one other poster in
>> your threads in this group besides me. You should check it out.
>
>So in other words you are refuting the idea (not very well) that
>precision in the use of language increased the accuracy of the
>meanings derived.
Show me where I implied that? Every school child knows about the
ambiguity of language, so when adults mention it, it is almost always
dogma time, and almost always it turns out to be ambiguous when
others use it, not them. You interpret this as an assertion that
ambiguity of language is not a problem?
Besides the attempt to assert a privileged position, it is a famous
unfalsifiablity device of kook dogma and one of the easiest ways of
identifying same.
Language ambiguity is a trivial problem in dialog (incl. Usenet)
because clarification to reliability is easy and unreliable words are
refused. It's only non-trivial for kooks and adolescents who just
read their first Quine book.
>Well you certainly only made at most an
>unsupported and unsubstantiated claim.
Not my claim. Your incorrect inference. What you wanted it to be,
obviously, since it conficts with your kook language dogma.
In case anyone in the world still doesn't know the end result of
that in it's many forms, it is always this: Logic doesn't work, except
for the kook. Evidence? Get the google count for "sci.logic olcott"
last 30 days mostly asserting that Turing's/sci.logic poster's logic
doesn't work, while Olcott's logic does.
>But apparently that is
>all that Usenet is about.
Mostly, or perhaps I should say predominabilistically.
If you don't know what that means, I win.
Larry
- Next message: Poker Joker: "Re: Can you find anything wrong with this solution to the Halting Problem?"
- Previous message: Acme Diagnostics: "Re: The Psychology of Responding to Crackpots"
- In reply to: Peter Olcott: "Re: The Psychology of Responding to Crackpots"
- Next in thread: Peter Olcott: "Re: The Psychology of Responding to Crackpots"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
