corto
Member of DD Central
one-syllabistic
Posts: 851
Likes: 356
|
Post by corto on Jan 22, 2022 16:12:30 GMT
Of course one can be of the opinion that 1+1=3 and of course that doesn't make it true in the sense of the usual decimal number system.
I think in this country and many others it is legal to be of any opinion about anything.
There is no requirement that one can justify them and many opinions can not be justfied, eg red is nicer than green.
That does not mean that one can say anything one wants in public or to individuals -
one may break their rights, break general laws (eg about extreme views), or just sound somewhat peculiar.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2022 16:32:23 GMT
Freedom of speech ensures that you may hold the opinion that the moon is made of Parmesan cheese.
Freedom of speech does not protect you from ridicule for holding such a stupid opinion.
Nor does freedom of speech mean that private companies such as Facebook have to allow such stupid opinions on their platform.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jan 22, 2022 16:34:03 GMT
Of course one can be of the opinion that 1+1=3 and of course that doesn't make it true in the sense of the usual decimal number system. I think in this country and many others it is legal to be of any opinion about anything. There is no requirement that one can justify them and many opinions can not be justfied, eg red is nicer than green.That does not mean that one can say anything one wants in public or to individuals - one may break their rights, break general laws (eg about extreme views), or just sound somewhat peculiar. well that would clearly be a matter of subjective opinion. And it can be justified: by the simple virtue of it being subjective. Red is nicer than green because I find it so (that is, my brain is wired such that I get more pleasure form one than the other). Beef is nicer than chicken because I find it so. An "opinion" that 5G masts are the cause of Covid, and not a virus referred to as SARS-COV-2, is not a matter of subjective opinion: it is a statement of a supposed objective fact. Which clearly doesn't stand up to scrutiny/the vast weight of scientific knowledge. You are able and can be 'entitled' to believe it, but not have an "entitlement" to have that view/belief treated in the same way and with the same 'privileges' as others which can stand up to rational challenge.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,624 
Likes: 6,437
|
Post by registerme on Jan 22, 2022 16:37:50 GMT
The logical extension of your position would seem to be that I can state that 1+1=3, because it's my opinion, and I'm entitled to hold it. Surely that's nonsense, no? Not sure if anyone is curious since its way OT but alternative set theories exist, as do other non set-based foundations of mathematics. It sounds like you claim both that 1+1=2 is true and that no alternative exists - but can you prove that? Or is there another bunch of axioms that can be used to build maths on? Some people worry about this kind of thing a lot it turns out! Absolutely. See some of the funky things I've posted here. Also, thank you. Whilst it's true that I was using the 1+1=3 example in it's most prosaic form possible, and that it was largely rhetorical, you've made my point quite effectively for me. You've provided some support for the notion that there can be cases where 1+1=3 may not be incorrect. That forms (part of) a justification, and it stands up to some level of scrutiny. Discourse continues, understanding grows, and opinions change as a result.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,385
Likes: 2,784
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Jan 22, 2022 16:42:58 GMT
Of course one can be of the opinion that 1+1=3 and of course that doesn't make it true in the sense of the usual decimal number system. I think in this country and many others it is legal to be of any opinion about anything. There is no requirement that one can justify them and many opinions can not be justfied, eg red is nicer than green.That does not mean that one can say anything one wants in public or to individuals - one may break their rights, break general laws (eg about extreme views), or just sound somewhat peculiar. well that would clearly be a matter of subjective opinion. And it can be justified: by the simple virtue of it being subjective. Red is nicer than green because I find it so (that is, my brain is wired such that I get more pleasure form one than the other). Beef is nicer than chicken because I find it so. An "opinion" that 5G masts are the cause of Covid, and not a virus referred to as SARS-COV-2, is not a matter of subjective opinion: it is a statement of a supposed objective fact. Which clearly doesn't stand up to scrutiny/the vast weight of scientific knowledge. You are able and can be 'entitled' to believe it, but not have an "entitlement" to have that view/belief treated in the same way and with the same 'privileges' as others which can stand up to rational challenge. But since the world is governed by a global satanic cult and nothing you read in the media is true it is undeniable that 5G masts are the work of the devil as are Covid jabs. With the 'awakened' starting from this position and the rest of the population being deluded logic is out of the window before you even start the conversation.
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Jan 22, 2022 17:17:13 GMT
The logical extension of your position would seem to be that I can state that 1+1=3, because it's my opinion, and I'm entitled to hold it. Surely that's nonsense, no? Not sure if anyone is curious since its way OT but alternative set theories exist, as do other non set-based foundations of mathematics. It sounds like you claim both that 1+1=2 is true and that no alternative exists - but can you prove that? Or is there another bunch of axioms that can be used to build maths on? Some people worry about this kind of thing a lot it turns out! And we all know that 1+1=10 anyway. In binary.
|
|
corto
Member of DD Central
one-syllabistic
Posts: 851
Likes: 356
|
Post by corto on Jan 22, 2022 17:17:38 GMT
Of course one can be of the opinion that 1+1=3 and of course that doesn't make it true in the sense of the usual decimal number system. I think in this country and many others it is legal to be of any opinion about anything. There is no requirement that one can justify them and many opinions can not be justfied, eg red is nicer than green.That does not mean that one can say anything one wants in public or to individuals - one may break their rights, break general laws (eg about extreme views), or just sound somewhat peculiar. well that would clearly be a matter of subjective opinion. And it can be justified: by the simple virtue of it being subjective. Red is nicer than green because I find it so (that is, my brain is wired such that I get more pleasure form one than the other). Beef is nicer than chicken because I find it so. An "opinion" that 5G masts are the cause of Covid, and not a virus referred to as SARS-COV-2, is not a matter of subjective opinion: it is a statement of a supposed objective fact. Which clearly doesn't stand up to scrutiny/the vast weight of scientific knowledge. You are able and can be 'entitled' to believe it, but not have an "entitlement" to have that view/belief treated in the same way and with the same 'privileges' as others which can stand up to rational challenge. There are two issues 1) Does Opinion have a place in discourse? Very well discussable. I believe so. There do exist communities where this is central and accepted practice, eg it is common to believe / be of the opinion that god or some other entities exist in most religions. This point also touches the question whether opinions have to be justifiable at all. 2) Does Opinion have a place in rational theory? More tricky, but yes. Ideally one wants it all nicely provable from the axioms, but - even in Maths there are axioms that not everybody agrees upon, for example, the axiom of choice, or the acceptance that infinity or the continuum exist (cf Constructivism). Depending on what you accept you get different sets of what's provable. - as Turing has shown, and some believe also Church, not every statement in a sufficiently complex logical calculus is provable within that calculus. So, there remain statements that can only be believed. What it all boils down to is that we all have our own systems of beliefs and we have to live together in a society. Extremely complex problem. Solutions only for the most simple cases. We must give it some slack.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,016
Likes: 5,146
|
Post by adrianc on Jan 22, 2022 17:41:24 GMT
And we all know that 1+1=10 anyway. In binary. There are 10 types of people... Those that understand binary, and those that don't.
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Jan 22, 2022 17:53:01 GMT
well that would clearly be a matter of subjective opinion. And it can be justified: by the simple virtue of it being subjective. Red is nicer than green because I find it so (that is, my brain is wired such that I get more pleasure form one than the other). Beef is nicer than chicken because I find it so. An "opinion" that 5G masts are the cause of Covid, and not a virus referred to as SARS-COV-2, is not a matter of subjective opinion: it is a statement of a supposed objective fact. Which clearly doesn't stand up to scrutiny/the vast weight of scientific knowledge. You are able and can be 'entitled' to believe it, but not have an "entitlement" to have that view/belief treated in the same way and with the same 'privileges' as others which can stand up to rational challenge. There are two issues 1) Does Opinion have a place in discourse? Very well discussable. I believe so. There do exist communities where this is central and accepted practice, eg it is common to believe / be of the opinion that god or some other entities exist in most religions. This point also touches the question whether opinions have to be justifiable at all. 2) Does Opinion have a place in rational theory? More tricky, but yes. Ideally one wants it all nicely provable from the axioms, but - even in Maths there are axioms that not everybody agrees upon, for example, the axiom of choice, or the acceptance that infinity or the continuum exist (cf Constructivism). Depending on what you accept you get different sets of what's provable. - as Turing has shown, and some believe also Church, not every statement in a sufficiently complex logical calculus is provable within that calculus. So, there remain statements that can only be believed. What it all boils down to is that we all have our own systems of beliefs and we have to live together in a society. Extremely complex problem. Solutions only for the most simple cases. We must give it some slack. Fascinating stuff. I have to say that flies in the face of everything I learned in the 1980s. Axioms in maths were just that, axiomatic. A starting point that all mathematicians would accept as true. Proves there are always nuances and always more to learn. What with this and "electrical energy not flowing in wires" (https://p2pindependentforum.com/post/440848), I have so much baggage to unlearn! 
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 6,437
|
Post by registerme on Jan 22, 2022 18:21:33 GMT
I'm not sure that there's too much common ground between differences of opinion about abstruse (obscure, fascinating, possible vitally fundamental) corners of maths and philosophy on the one hand, and differences of opinion between commonly accepted, peer reviewed, easily testable science and batwhackery on the other.
Believing in 5g towers giving you COVID, or Bill Gates wanting to put microchips in everybody's head, or whatever other conspiracy bingo you want to play is demonstrably disprovable. Continuing to believe in it is delusional. Continuing to disrupt the provision of medical services to people because of those beliefs is just plain wrong.
Having opinions is fine. Holding to those opinions in the face of evidence that contradicts your views is... not a useful place to be.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2022 18:30:18 GMT
ain't no law against being a dum-ass
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,707
Likes: 2,983
|
Post by michaelc on Jan 22, 2022 18:33:42 GMT
No Michael. My argument is that whilst people are entitled to their opinions, they need to be able to justify them, and that justification needs to stand up to scrutiny. If it fails to do so then those opinions should, rationally, be modified. The logical extension of your position would seem to be that I can state that 1+1=3, because it's my opinion, and I'm entitled to hold it. Surely that's nonsense, no? No absolutely it is not nonsense. "You" can allow your brain to think what it wants. In fact you probably already think all sorts of "1+1=3"s without knowing it - more advanced examples and probably non-mathematical ones too. We all make assumptions unconscious or otherwise.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 6,437
|
Post by registerme on Jan 22, 2022 20:02:37 GMT
But when I assimilate more evidence, or somebody demonstrates that I've made a mistake, I change my mind / correct things, or my opinions evolve.
EDIT: And where I am not qualified to have an opinion I am happy to be lead by those who are, being confident, on the whole, that they will change their opinions as and when the evidence changes.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jan 23, 2022 7:00:23 GMT
But when I assimilate more evidence, or somebody demonstrates that I've made a mistake, I change my mind / correct things, or my opinions evolve. EDIT: And where I am not qualified to have an opinion I am happy to be lead by those who are, being confident, on the whole, that they will change their opinions as and when the evidence changes.Especially so - or maybe only when - that cohort of experts is subject to vast levels of rigorous monitoring/assessment/challenge by an even larger cohort of people much more competent than myself; when they are able to produce rationalisations and evidence that support their assertions, and esp. so when those in turn are built on foundations of solid well tested knowledge; and when they are operating in an environment which allows for and encourages free speech.
|
|
corto
Member of DD Central
one-syllabistic
Posts: 851
Likes: 356
|
Post by corto on Jan 23, 2022 10:25:01 GMT
I'm not sure that there's too much common ground between differences of opinion about abstruse (obscure, fascinating, possible vitally fundamental) corners of maths and philosophy on the one hand, and differences of opinion between commonly accepted, peer reviewed, easily testable science and batwhackery on the other. Believing in 5g towers giving you COVID, or Bill Gates wanting to put microchips in everybody's head, or whatever other conspiracy bingo you want to play is demonstrably disprovable. Continuing to believe in it is delusional. Continuing to disrupt the provision of medical services to people because of those beliefs is just plain wrong. Having opinions is fine. Holding to those opinions in the face of evidence that contradicts your views is... not a useful place to be. These abstruse etc corners of Maths are entirely present and common in (academic) Maths and results are peer reviewed and published just as they are in more applied areas of science. They put a fundamental constraint on what theories can do (not only in Maths, but anywhere) and also what computers can compute, because theories in a sense are equivalent to algorithms, and provability and computability are more or less the same thing. Now, Computers are lovely and everywhere, and seem to be having virtually no limits. But they have, otherwise Bitcoin wouldn't work (it relies on what is currently uncomputable) and Quantum computers would be unnecessary (it wants to extend the boundary of what can be computed). These are just two examples that make those fascinating topics relevant to everyday live. As for pseudo-science and conspiracy theories. I personally have them in the same category as religion. Some are obviously wrong - nobody believes in Greek gods anymore (but at their time they were "real" and not ridiculous). Obviously "wrong" may actually be the wrong word. These are not theories, at least not complete ones, as their axioms are not all spelled out, and some assumptions are questionable and probably false from a scientific point of view in the first place. The meaning of "wrong" is therefore difficult to define, it wouldn't be the same as True or False in any formal logical sense. Methods of prove and communication also do not always uphold to standards, however, in medieval times shouting in a discourse was acceptable; some trolling may still be considered a sign of seriousness. These are believe systems that aim at making people more happy. Some are good and useful and help a vast amount of people everyday. I have no doubt what QAnon believers believe is real and true in their mind (perhaps up to a certain level of doubt). Yet it's no theory and for it to become, the axioms and facts have to get on the table and be scrutinised. It's the only known method to convince a rationalist. There is little doubt that rational procedures would fail for QAnon, G5 Covid or Gates' brain chips (it's Elon Musk who wants to do this, www.documentcloud.org/documents/6204648-Neuralink-White-Paper). There is a level of argumentation between conspiracies and theories called common sense, which is very useful in all practice as data are never so clear and the brain is not made for logic anyway, rather for detecting similarities and analogies and predicting the future. Uncertainty is built in by the nature of nature, excluding the possibility of absolute certainty. Common sense, an understanding or believe based on agreements how things are or should be, is what we use to decide many times a day. Yet, common sense seems to be broken at the moment in favour of factionalism and trench warfare.
|
|
