felipec
unbelief
No bio...
User ID: 1796
felipec
unbelief
1yr ago
My post has absolutely nothing to do with bases. Did you read it?
felipec
unbelief
1yr ago
Can anybody who voted explain to me how the winner entry is superior to mine?
From what I can see this is what it said about intuition:
-
Grady Little may have made a decision based on intuition, Joe Maddon didn't
-
To improve intuition one must train
-
LBJ was intuitive, Obama wasn't
That's basically it.
This is what it didn't say:
-
What is intuition
-
What is the opposite of intuition
-
When is intuition helpful
-
When is intuition unhelpful
-
How complex intuition is
-
What intuition is comprised of
My essay at least attempted to answer these.
To me this is clear evidence of bias in this community.
And because Mottizens are very prone to commit converse error fallacies, I shall point out that this is not something specific to my essay, I also don't see how the winner is superior to this entry: Intuition in a Scientific Age, which also does attempt to answer some of the important questions, such was: what is intuition? I also would be interested in hearing why somebody who voted for the winner considered it superior to that one.
felipec
unbelief
1yr ago
Except arithmetic isn't a semantic trick, and modern algebra is an important field of mathematics, not something I invented.
felipec
unbelief
1yr ago
I suppose your larger point is true, but not particularly meaningful.
Are you 100% certain of that?
So a statement that seems easy and clear to interpret can actually be misleading when your interlocutor is deliberately trying to confuse and deceive you by omitting key information?
This is a loaded language claim, a rhetoric trick. You are intentionally adding the word "misleading" to prompt an emotional response.
Consider this exchange:
-
If you don't denounce Russia's illegal war of aggression, that makes you a Putin apologist, that's as unequivocally true as
2+2=4 -
Actually,
2+2=4is not unequivocally true
My claim (2) is not "misleading", and I'm not "deliberately trying to confuse and deceive" anyone, it's the other person who made a false claim (1). The sole objective of me bringing up this abstract algebra notion is to increase doubt on the original claim about Russia sides. The factoid 2+2=4 is not used by me as an end, it's used by somebody else as a means to an end. 2+2=4 is often used as a tool to demonstrate 100% certainty, and it can be dismantled.
Your loaded language claim doesn't apply in this example. We can get rid of the loaded language and make a much more fair, generous and neutral claim:
"A statement that seems easy, clear to interpret, and is obviously 100% certain to be true can actually be not necessarily true when an unrealized assumption is present."
How is this more generous claim not correct?
felipec
unbelief
1yr ago
I was not trying to build consensus: "anyone paying attention" is not "everyone", it could very well be less than 1% of the people, that's not consensus in the least. And very well could accommodate 99% of the people that as you say "doesn't know it yet".
felipec
unbelief
1yr ago
If 2+2=4 are elements in a modular ring, it holds true.
Integers modulo 4 (𝐙/4𝐙) is a modular ring which does not contain the number 4.
felipec
unbelief
1yr ago
Yeah? What is your most fundamental belief that you have questioned this year?
felipec
unbelief
1yr ago
It's not really that clever, that's what I am saying.
Who says it has to be clever?
felipec
unbelief
1yr ago
Except my post proves that's not the case. Again: I did not change any the base in my post.
felipec
unbelief
1yr ago
I don't need to be thinking about modular arithmetic to doubt 2+2=4, I could do it without having a good reason to doubt.
And I explained in the article Bertrand Russell doubted something much more fundamental 1+1=2, wrote extensively about it, and it's considered serious and important work on the foundations of mathematics.
Do you think Bertrand Russell was "dishonest" for asking people to suspend their belief?
felipec
unbelief
1yr ago
It was better written and more engaging, for one, and reading it made me think of more interesting questions than your essay.
Really? Questions regarding intuition? For example?
People aren't robots, all things being equal they'll vote for the person who's more sympathetic.
Which is obviously wrong. This is obviously a cognitive bias (halo effect), and it's the exact opposite of what a judge should be doing: be objective.
felipec
unbelief
1yr ago
No need to be salty.
That's specifically why I mentioned the converse error fallacy. Just because somebody appears to be salty doesn't mean that he is.
I am asking the people who voted for the winner if they could explain why. I am genuinely curious.
To be honest, I do think my post is better than the winner too
I agree as well.
TheMotte like all places has its tastes and our job was to cater to that taste.
No, our job was to write an essay about intuition, the price was the motivation, not the goal. Just like the goal of a newspaper is supposed to be to inform the truth, not to make money. Pandering to a specific audience wasn't supposed to be the goal.
felipec
unbelief
1yr ago
his recent factually incorrect takes on the Syria gas attacks
OK. Starts of poisoning the well by claiming something is false without evidence. This might work on people with no critical thinking skills, but not me.
Especially because I know the attacks have been thoroughly debunked by Aron Mate.
Not going to waste my time.
felipec
unbelief
1yr ago
That is coming only from blatant pro Russia-propaganda.
I do not follow Russian sources. If you want me to follow up on my sources I can do that, but to dismiss everything if that turned out to be unsubstantiated is a fallacy.
felipec
unbelief
1yr ago
"2+2 = 4" is still actually true in Z4.
But not in 𝐙/4𝐙 (integers modulo 4).
felipec
unbelief
1yr ago
Of course with skillful redefinition of what '2' and '+' and '2' and '=' and '4' you can make it mean anything you like.
I did not invent abstract algebra, it's a important field in mathematics.
felipec
unbelief
1yr ago
The statement "in normal arithmetic 2+2=4" is true, but "2+2 is always 4" is false.
You can dismiss semantics all you want, but the meaning of the statements we make matter, and the certainty we have about the meaning of the statements other people make do matter.
Just this week I debated a person who was 100% certain he knew what anti-Semitism was (he didn't), what a dictionary was (he didn't), and what all the words in the definitions I presented to him meant (he didn't).
In my view 100% certainty is a problem.
I believe questioning the meaning of 2+2 might help some people question other unquestionably true beliefs.
Are you 100% certain it's impossible for this to happen?
felipec
unbelief
1yr ago
ugh, this guy really want to show me how smart he thinks he is
Yes, but I don't care about their reaction or their opinion of me.
I've never seen anybody seriously question any of their core beliefs in real time. But these notions plant a seed which eventually they can't avoid. Sleep is important in mulling these down.
In fact, I remember mentioning to somebody the claim "all models are wrong, but some are useful", which was immediately dismissed (since in an argument nobody wants to be wrong), but some time later the same person made the exact same claim to me. He forgot I was the one who mentioned it, but more importantly: he forgot that initially he immediately dismissed it.
I bet many people will forget this article and dismiss it as pedantry, but the next time someone says "this is as true as 2+2=4" they might think twice. These two things are not exclusionary.
felipec
unbelief
1yr ago
Most people consider the notation of integer arithmetic to be unambiguous in a general context
But that is the point: most people make assumptions. In this particular case it's easy to see what assumption is made for people who do understand modular arithmetic, but that excludes the vast majority of people who don't.
The whole point of the article is to raise doubt about more complicated subjects which are not so easy to mathematically prove.
felipec
unbelief
1yr ago
I don't trust Vox one bit. All I've seen from them is lies. They only push the official narrative. Always.
Those reports have had little proof
See, I know in the case of Syria that's not true. So yet another lie to add to the list.
Turns out USA did blew out Nord Stream: How America Took Out The Nord Stream Pipeline.
It was obvious to anyone paying attention, but now it's pretty much confirmed.
Of course I already see the people married to the opposite conclusion trying to discredit the journalist (on of the most decorated and impactful journalists of all time), and his sources: anonymous: (as if established publications didn't use anonymous sources).
More options
Context Copy link