Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Krensky" data-source="post: 5478722" data-attributes="member: 30936">No, I just maintain the fancy devices and computer systems used to do so. The people behind the counter may disagree between themselves and with their clients about whether two paint batches match, but not about what color they are. Well, the disagree with customers a lot, but they do it quietly when the customer isn't around.And you're confusing two different types of spectrometry. I am not referring to emission spectra used to determine a star's composition, but the color value used in stellar classification.I did read it. I disagreed with it because it's patently false. I then explained why it's false. You're claiming that no definition of forest will be sufficient to actually define what a forest is. The USGS disagrees. So do I.Yeah, couldn't resist. As we all know philosophers don't actually get paid. My two friends with philosophy degrees who work in call centers and the third with a bachelors and masters in in who works as a policeman are cases in point.And me three years ago is still me. What's your point?No. It wouldn't have my experiences, and it would not have been born to my mother. It certainly wouldn't have the chosen or earned elements of my identity. It would not have eaten at my mother's table, or my grandmothers'. It would not be me.I have a minor in the topic and it's one of the preferred topics when it comes time to shoot the breeze with my friends. As for the other two, commenting on them violates the politics rule.So show me where people with two different priors in the conversation have been swayed to change their opinion, or to synthesis their's with another's rather then just constantly repeating the same points over and over with a few tweaks or nudges. Since almost everyone here has a different set of priors and most of us aren't particularly rational on the topic. This, like the other threads are most just people trying to rationally explain an irrational preference. I don't like 4e. I don't find it fun or satisfying. I have no rational explanation for it, because there is none. 4e is a perfectly fine game, which I do not like.No matter what arguments or explanations are made, my preference will not change, nor will a fan of 4e's change. Part of this is because our priors are different. Part of it is because neither of us are purely rational about it.As I said. True is not false. False is not true. That's it. Anything else is a meaningless construct.Because there is no Truth or Falsehood to any of those positions.As a very simplistic analogy, which of the following is true?2+2=42+1+1=42+2=1+32+2!=52+2=sqrt(16)The same thing applies to all of the arguments in all of these threads. Bob says A, Jim says B, Doug says C, and then Helen says not D. They're all right because none of them can be wrong about their subjective preferences (baring insanity or self-deception). Since those preferences form their priors, as long as they limit their argument to A, B, C, and D they will not come to an agreement because, even if they are perfectly rational, their starting conditions are so different they can not converge as long as their priors are still valid for them.</blockquote>

Verification