User Tag List

First 24323334353644 Last

Results 331 to 340 of 581

  1. #331
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    This is utterly irrelevant to the conversation I'm having with @greenfairy.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  2. #332
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greenfairy View Post
    It could be translated as "All women love apples", and usually is, but not necessarily is what I'm saying.
    What I'm saying is how the hell could "women love apples" ever be translated to "some women love apples?" Adding "all" to "women love apples" doesn't change the meaning, because "women" implies the "all." Adding "some" to "women" changes the meaning because it restricts the number that we'd normally assume "women" to encompass.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  3. #333
    philosopher wood nymph greenfairy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    MBTI
    iNfj
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    What I'm saying is how the hell could "women love apples" ever be translated to "some women love apples?" Adding "all" to "women love apples" doesn't change the meaning, because "women" implies the "all." Adding "some" to "women" changes the meaning because it restricts the number that we'd normally assume "women" to encompass.
    Well, I was thinking of this example. Say you go to a different planet and you encounter these beings called women. You are recording your observations of them. You discover that some of them appear to love apples. You write that loving apples is an attribute of this species, because you observe examples of it. So "women" as a category and "loving apples" overlaps. Women as a category does not necessarily include every example of the species, but we know that the act of loving apples can be applied to the category of women.

  4. #334
    philosopher wood nymph greenfairy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    MBTI
    iNfj
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,042

    Default

    Alright my bad, I think it is usually translated as universal. Still, the above post is a good argument for ambiguity, and seeing ambiguity where it may not be does not validate the claim that I completely ignore logic, or that I employed a fallacy. I seem to recall us translating it as ambiguous, but maybe it's faulty Si.

    I wasn't trying to prove anything, just using what I learned because I enjoy it.

    Quote Originally Posted by greenfairy View Post
    Wrong. Translating statements as outlined in a textbook is not persuasion, or an argument; so appealing to authority does not apply. Contradicting the correct application of logic as an academic discipline would be illogical.
    I guess I'm illogical in this instance. Which means I'm an NF. Or faulty Si. For the record I got an A in the class.

  5. #335
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    This is utterly irrelevant to the conversation I'm having with @greenfairy.
    I disagree.

    They are over there talking about "women love apples" and "women hate apples" not being true simultaneously.

    greenfairy took a presumably practical approach by putting the statements into a context where they make sense in the world. She showed that by logic the two statements are contradictory, and it seems pretty much concluded that they must mean something else in a practical setting.

    I brought up the Ravens Paradox because the essential part of the paradox is the fact that if something that doesn't contradict your hypothesis helps confirm it, then paradoxically it also helps confirm the inverse of that same hypothesis.

    e.g. the hypothesis "All ravens are black" can be given confirmation by a red coffee cup. Paradoxically, "All ravens are white" is also confirmed by a red coffee cup. So in the end making an all inclusive hypothesis isn't worth much in a strict logical setting as opposed to a practical setting. You can say "all x's are y's" on paper until you're blue in the face but when it comes time to verify it in reality in the same strict logical sense, it's kaput.

    There's really no sense in bothering to phrase it that way to begin with because it can't be backed up physically to the extent that the logic is actually making the claim.

  6. #336
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Posts
    85

    Default

    Hah hah yeah right - a woman is going to help me find me soul. Gooby pls.

  7. #337
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greenfairy View Post
    Well, I was thinking of this example. Say you go to a different planet and you encounter these beings called women. You are recording your observations of them. You discover that some of them appear to love apples. You write that loving apples is an attribute of this species, because you observe examples of it. So "women" as a category and "loving apples" overlaps. Women as a category does not necessarily include every example of the species, but we know that the act of loving apples can be applied to the category of women.
    Then it would be treated as a hypothesis to be tested, not an assertion. "Women love apples" is still a universal statement, and instances of women not loving apples, if observed, would still contradict it.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  8. #338
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    They are over there talking about "women love apples" and "women hate apples" not being true simultaneously.
    Yes...

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    She showed that by logic the two statements are contradictory, and it seems pretty much concluded that they must mean something else in a practical setting.
    What?

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    I brought up the Ravens Paradox because the essential part of the paradox is the fact that if something that doesn't contradict your hypothesis helps confirm it, then paradoxically it also helps confirm the inverse of that same hypothesis.

    e.g. the hypothesis "All ravens are black" can be given confirmation by a red coffee cup. Paradoxically, "All ravens are white" is also confirmed by a red coffee cup. So in the end making an all inclusive hypothesis isn't worth much in a strict logical setting as opposed to a practical setting. You can say "all x's are y's" on paper until you're blue in the face but when it comes time to verify it in reality in the same strict logical sense, it's kaput.

    There's really no sense in bothering to phrase it that way to begin with because it can't be backed up physically to the extent that the logic is actually making the claim.
    Still not seeing the relevance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hawbawbowba View Post
    Hah hah yeah right - a woman is going to help me find me soul. Gooby pls.
    You win the thread!
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  9. #339
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    @Orangey

    Translation:

    It's impractical to expect people to be absolutely, syntactically correct at all times.

    greenfairy is correct that when someone says "women love apples" they generally mean "some women love apples" or even "in general, women love apples"

    Perhaps you expect that it should imply 'all' - and maybe it should - but rarely do people actually operate in the way you expect them to.

    You may as well expect someone to mean 'this object has a low temperature' when they say something is 'cool'. And even if you do expect that, it doesn't mean anyone is going to, so get used to it.

  10. #340
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    @Orangey

    Translation:

    It's impractical to expect people to be absolutely, syntactically correct at all times.

    greenfairy is correct that when someone says "women love apples" they generally mean "some women love apples" or even "in general, women love apples"

    Perhaps you expect that it should imply 'all' - and maybe it should - but rarely do people actually operate in the way you expect them to.

    You may as well expect someone to mean 'this object has a low temperature' when they say something is 'cool'. And even if you do expect that, it doesn't mean anyone is going to, so get used to it.
    When did I ever say that I expect people to be syntactically correct all the time? Greenfairy is the one who brought formal logic into this, and in formal logical terms, the translation of "women love apples" would require a universal quantifier.

    Nevertheless, you're going to make category mistakes in real argumentation if you don't watch your language. It'll just be called a fallacy at that point.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

Similar Threads

  1. Older woman younger man
    By Butterfly in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 05-17-2012, 06:27 AM
  2. [NF] F woman and T man
    By INTPness in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-15-2010, 03:22 AM
  3. [NF] If you had infinite money,land, and man-power... What would you do for fun?
    By ObeyBunny in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-10-2010, 12:05 AM
  4. The good life and man's relation to society
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 07-23-2008, 11:43 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO