Re: Would it matter if ZF was inconsistent?

On Jul 27, 3:56 pm, Transfer Principle <lwal...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 27, 2:56 pm, MoeBlee <jazzm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 27, 1:51 pm, Transfer Principle <lwal...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Now someone who calls WM a "crank" is more likely than one
who doesn't call him that to follow 1), and someone who calls
WM a "crank" is more likely than one who doesn't call him that
to follow 2). So the use of the word "crank" to describe WM is
insufficient to distinguish between 1) and 2).
Or you could just see what people actually SAY as to why they call him
a crank.

OK, then. Let's see what MoeBlee wrote last week:

So why don't people (some who go on and on for years and DECADES, over
even THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of posts) making uninformed, misinformed,
mal-informed, illogical, often incoherent, dogmatic, unresponsive
arguments for various propositions, some of which are plainly untrue
and some just unproven (and some, for their incoherence, not even
propositoins) not deserve to be called 'cranks'?

A proof that "uninformed" or "illogical" would fall under my
1) -- the proof is invalid.

No, it doesn't. Someone can be informed but make an honest mistake in
their logic.

I ignore the word "dogmatic," since
just as MoeBlee considers "cranks" to be "dogmatic," the
"cranks" consider MoeBlee and those who agree with him
to be "dogmatic," so that cancels out.

No it doesn't. That's ridiculous logic. For example: Just because both
countries claim each other is the aggressor in, say, a war, doesn't
entail that they both are the aggressor and that one of them wasn't
unjustifiably attacked.

I've said what is dogmatic in the stance of certain cranks. Just
because those cranks say that ordinary mathematics is dogmatic doesn't
in itself settle such questions or even such comparisons.

"Unresponsive" -- a
bit odd that MoeBlee would call "cranks" "unresponsive"
since they seem to respond all the time -- maybe just not
in the way he would like them too.

Unresponsive in the sense that their many replies are often not to the
point in the argument but rather deploy evasion, changing subject,
changing meanings of terms midway in argument, resort to yet more
undefined terminology, hand waving of various kinds, escapes through
illogic, and just plain repetition of claims that have already been
demolished (e.g, see currently Easterly's continued insistence that
AxEyP entails EyAxP.

"Not even" propositions
sounds like the "not even true" phrase I've mentioned before.

Roughly, okay.

This is why MoeBlee calls WM a "crank." Now if MoeBlee
were the only poster who ever called WM a "crank," we'd
be all set, but unfortunately other posters besides MoeBlee
call him a "crank," and I still don't know why they call him
a "crank," or what percentage of posters who call him a
"crank" would agree with MoeBlee's reason for doing so.

Of course, I only speak for myself.

Now here MoeBlee asks, do such posters deserve to be
called "cranks?" Maybe -- but I won't,

Suit yourself. But your own choice doesn't entail that people don't
have good reason for doing so.

unless I add scare
quotes and/or the "so-called" qualifier. My argument was
that those who would call them "cranks" then would follow
path 2) above deserve the label _more_, and if this scenario
ever occurs, I'll drop all scare quotes with my labels.

So the answer to Hughes's question is that a "crank"-caller
is more likely than a non-"crank"-caller to be "intellectually
dishonest" and ignore all proofs that one's favorite set theory
is inconsistent,
WHAT?! Your "reasoning" toward that conclusion is RIDICULOUS.

The claim here is that suppose there are two posters, one
who calls WM a "crank," and one who doesn't. If we know
nothing else about the two posters, which of them is more
likely to defend ZFC even if proved inconsistent?

Even IF there were some inferences of liklihood to be drawn, your
argument is ridiculously farfetched.

This is
a question about _probability_, not definiteness.

You are so EXTREMELY REMOTE from drawing any reasonable probabilistic
inference that it is ridiculous.

One can find some extremely minute basis to draw virtually any
probabilistic inference the way you're going about it.

Say one person lives 2000 miles from San Diego and another person
lives 2005 miles from San Diego. The first person lives closer to San
Diego, which is a big naval town so that person is more likely to be
sympathetic to the U.S. Navy than the second person.

That's not MUCH more ridiculous than the way you're inference-making
here.

We
clearly can't conclude from the label "crank" alone who
_will_ ignore a proof of ~Con(ZFC). I'm only asking who is
more _likely_ to do so.

Your last name is typically Anglo. Mine isn't. Therefore, you're more
likely to be racist against ethnic minorities than I am likely to be.
We better make a note of that in case Martians visit this planet and
we have to choose everyday people from various communities to
represent to the Martians our desired sentiments on such subjects as
race and ethnicity.

WM calls that ZFC is inconsistent. There is a nonzero
probability that someone who calls WM a "crank" will
call everyone who claims ZFC inconsistent a "crank" (and
would therefore ignore the proof that ZFC is inconsistent.) It
doesn't matter how small this probability is -- as long as it
is nonzero, it's enough to raise the probability that a
"crank"-caller will ignore the proof of ~Con(ZFC) above that
of the non-"crank"-caller -- which is all I claimed.

Good, so then it doesn't matter how small the probability that people
with a middle name that starts with 'W' are thereby more sympathetic
to George W. Bush because they at least identity with him about his
famous initial; it's still a probability we have to take into account.
And then, even though we have no evidence that such an event is going
to occur, just in case George W. Bush is annointed by visiting
Martians to be the King of Earth, we have to keep in mind who is more
likely to be sympathetic to George W. Bush, so we need to look at
people's middle names; doesn't matter that the connection is of small
probability, it's still a probability.

For that matter, you've NOT EVEN ESTABLISHED ANY PROBABILITY! You've
no DATA. And of course you have no DATA, since your concern is
ENTIRELY HYPOTHETICAL. You're reasoning too is ENTIRELY HYPOTHETICAL.
For example (made up for illustration), you don't have actual EVIDENCE
that people who wear tennis shoes to work are more athletic than
people who wear dress shoes to work; rather, you simply "reason" such
an inference by the flimsiest kind of "one thing SEEMS to suggest
another" thinking.

In particular, I never claimed that _MoeBlee_ would ignore
a valid proof of ~Con(ZFC). As this and other posts suggest,
MoeBlee would accept a _valid_ proof of ~Con(ZFC) and
attempt to find a theory which would avoid the contradiction,
and he calls WM a "crank" not merely because he claims
~Con(ZFC), but because WM's proof is _wrong_, among
other reasons (since he wrote "Not ONLY that").

But there's no reason to assume that MoeBlee's reaction
to a proof of ~Con(ZFC) is representative of most sci.math
posters' reaction to such a proof.

And there's no reason to think it is not representative. You don't
have grounds to infer EITHER WAY. Yet you come up with a LUDICROUS
"probability" argument anyway.

I believe that some posters
will have a reaction similar to the one that MoeBlee describes
and others will have a reaction similar to what I fear -- and
that those who will have the reaction I fear are among (i.e., a
proper subset of the set of) posters who currently call WM a
"crank" right now.

This is a relevant as what I fear will be the reaction of various
people to a poll conducted by visiting Martians in pink leotards as to
whether people are adequately informed about the difference between
good cholesterol and bad cholesterol.

MoeBlee

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Would it matter if ZF was inconsistent?
    ... call everyone who claims ZFC inconsistent a "crank" (and ... doesn't matter how small this probability is -- as long as it ... analogy, due to a similar analogy by MoeBlee. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Would it matter if ZF was inconsistent?
    ... call everyone who claims ZFC inconsistent a "crank" (and ... doesn't matter how small this probability is -- as long as it ... analogy, due to a similar analogy by MoeBlee. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: The Einstein Legacy (Anti Quantum Mechanics)
    ... >you crank out probabilities from) or the von Neumann ... >Modern treatments of quantum theory have all converged on this extra ... >you deterministic evolution of states and observables. ... Probability lives with the notion of ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Tolerance of hate in Sci.Math
    ... There are some posters, ... Calling someone a "crank" is never justified. ... thereby ignoring their desiderata for new theories. ... axiom but keep all the axioms of Z-Infinity. ...
    (sci.math)
  • new-idears Re: .9 repeating
    ... I would definitely killfile some posters. ... crank chasers draw the word ... "crank" to talk about crank chasers. ... I wish the psychology science would come up with a better term for ...
    (sci.math)