- NEW!
by philosopher-saint on October 29th, 2009
This quote makes no sense to me.
A valid conclusion can only be so if the premises are valid as well. If a premise is "biased", I think that's entirely relevant to any conclusion!
Was this statement's author a Machiavellian - or a Catholic?!
-
[ooops. Sorry - I didn't see your link.]
;-)
If life is unfair to everyone, doesn't that mean life is fair to everyone.
by TSCTH on January 27th, 2012
| 5 people like this
How young is the child in you?
by ₵ѺҒғϵέʗƲǷ on January 28th, 2012
| 6 people like this
"Be weak if you want to love" -- But isn't love not for the faint-hearted? Do you agree with that?
by ₵ѺҒғϵέʗƲǷ on January 28th, 2012
| 2 people like this
Is ignorance an "incurable" human DISEASE?
by ₵ѺҒғϵέʗƲǷ on January 28th, 2012
| 5 people like this
which president / former president would you really like to meet? why?
by Bornabrit on January 27th, 2012
| 1 person likes this
You're reading "I encourage to you to understand when bias is irrelevant because the reasoning is what makes a conclusion valid." - Thoughts? I personally feel that 'bias' influences any thought process - especially as it can be defined as a "mental tendency". Ideas?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
The author was a Jehovah's Witness that described his/herself as 'athiest' three years ago. It also made no sense to me. Many things influence our reasoning and our 'mental tendancy' so a conclusion will be biased unless the premises of that conclusion are determined to be valid. We have to build our conclusion looking at every possible outcome, and not just our own 'accepted view'.
by Richard the Anonymous on October 29th, 2009
Agreed - bias is irrelevant only if you have a situation in which classical / binary logic is sufficient to reach a conclusion, and only if the premises are rock-solid. Classical logic gets into trouble whenever there are subtleties in definitions of terms, partial-truths which need to be respected, results which depend on complex functions of causes and conditions...
Real life is generally far too complex and "fuzzy" to fit well into classical logic arguments like that. Ignoring bias is seriously negligent.
by HasntBeen on October 29th, 2009
Thank you HasntBeen! Great comment! :D
by Richard the Anonymous on October 29th, 2009
I had a lot of experience with this issue as a child :) My father was a Baptist hellfire-and-brimstone preacher who managed to justify abusing his family with such "logic". Learning about this topic was required to escape his tractor beam :)
by HasntBeen on October 29th, 2009
Yor mentioned differences in definitions of terms - this was exactly what I had explained, that this person used their own definitions of things and their own theology to come to the conclusion thay had! That they first needed to test those definitions and theologies against many elements before thinking their conclusion was valid. But all I really got was the comment quoted above and told that I wasn't presenting a case or being reasonable because I refused to 'bible bash' as some like to call it!
by Richard the Anonymous on October 29th, 2009
I first skimmed through it and thought it said what you quoted. I read it again and I see that you misquoted it. "I hope that, although we all have bias, you are intelligent and honest enough to understand when bias matters less than the reasoning presented."
What I get out of that is to not let bias stand in the way of the reasoning presented. Although we all may be bias, we should let our bias hold less importance than reasoning.
by Texasescimo on October 29th, 2009
Well I didn't misquote it because I copied and pasted it directly from the comment! I am saying bias has an impact on our reasoning. You just dont get it do you.
by Richard the Anonymous on October 29th, 2009
Select the quote and put it in a 'find on this page' search at the following link:
.
http://www.answerbag.co.uk/a_view/8078896
by Richard the Anonymous on October 29th, 2009
@Anonymous: I think it's good for everybody to get clear about the role and limitations of classical logic, because there's sort of a mythological reverence in which logic is held which it hasn't earned. All sorts of arguments are fraught with this kind of fluffy notion that logic is the answer to all questions.
But classical logic's actual utility is limited, and it's limited in very precise ways... conclusions depend completely on the quality of premises, on the precision with which sets and relationships are defined, and of course on avoiding operational errors in reasoning. There just aren't that many places in life where those conditions are met, such that we can anoint logic as King of Thinking.
Normally when someone claims they've beaten their opponent with logic, it's more like an appeal to authority fallacy, where the authority is the mythical cloud of awe that we think surrounds Logic with a capital L.
Most of the "hotbutton" or persistently contentious philosophical debates in politics and religion are infested with this disease.
by HasntBeen on October 29th, 2009
So then you posted the wrong link in the question box? I skimmed through it and did not find it. It really is not that much different anyway. I really don't see what is wrong with trying to put bias aside and use reason to come to a valid conclusion.
Quote from above [(Anonymous Oct, 29 2009 at 08:24 AM)
"I refused to 'bible bash' as some like to call it!"] If you notice in the thread that you just linked to, there was a peaceful conversation going on until you got there with your slanderous post that you have no way to substantiate.
Quote from other thread: [(Anonymous Oct, 28 2009 at 02:54 PM)
"I hope you continue to seek truth just as I do. I have nothing more to say here and was never trying to 'prove' anything just see how you questioned opinion different to your (or JW's) own. END"]
.
Why could you not just leave it at that? You try to act like you are not attacking and then you go outside the thread and put a link to the one you dislike the most and solicit others to agree with your opinion of that one.
by Texasescimo on October 29th, 2009
You have explained very well some of the thoughts going through my head that I probably would have had difficulty in explaining. I kept explaining that I wasn't trying to prove or present anything just place a question in the balence.
.
I think it's best described in the converstaion I had today with my friend Jim, he stated:
.
"When investigating something, always be open minded and allow the evidence to lead where it will - and even when you reach a conclusion - allow any future evidence and truth to adapt your thinking without reservation or preconceived ideas. That's healthy."
by Richard the Anonymous on October 29th, 2009
I was merely suggesting that this continual adaptation of thought when new eveidence comes along changed our conlusions. I was trying to direct the person to think beyond the accepted conclusions of their organization in order to consult all the evidence rather than just providing scriptural passages to make a point based on those accepted conclusions.
by Richard the Anonymous on October 29th, 2009
Yes, exactly. It's about balance. Logic has it's place, of course. But what happens in religion... almost always... is that a fixed set of conclusions becomes sacred and inviolate: one is really not allowed to challenge them without risking excommunication or some similar consequence. The social pressure to preserve the sacred beliefs is intense, and at the same time believers will claim that they're thinking for themselves and came to these exact conclusions by their own personal process of exploration -- remarkably, the conclusions they came to match up precisely with the pre-existing beliefs of their sect!
When the preservation of beliefs becomes more important than the investigation of truth, the operation begins to earn the name 'religion'.
by HasntBeen on October 29th, 2009
"this continual adaptation of thought when new eveidence comes along changed our conlusions" Isn't that what your complaint about JW's was in your initial entry into the other thread? Wasn't I telling MR_IT with scriptural references as to why I don't believe in the Rapture? Didn't you refer back to a time that someone else may have beleived in the Rapture?
by Texasescimo on October 29th, 2009
In the other thread, you said:[(Anonymous Oct, 28 2009 at 01:42 PM) "The trinity doctrine is developed over time - in the minds and theology of men - however we are not discussing that"] You also said that you have check several translations and manuscripts and suggested we do the same. Do you not believe in the Trinity because it doesn't fit with your preconceived ideas or did you come to that conclusion by comparing translations and manuscripts?
by Texasescimo on October 29th, 2009
I do not accept the 'trinity theology' - I think I even stated this when asked. With my initial comment - I was trying to see if JW's were aware of previously accepted thought. What are you trying to get at? It seems to me that you are trying to challenge my own personal conclusions by discrediting potential contradictions in those conclusions. The error is that I was not discussing what I personally accepted or concluded - I was seeing how the theology presented stood up aginst "subtleties in definitions of terms" and "complex functions of causes and conditions" that HasntBeen discusses.
by Richard the Anonymous on October 29th, 2009
I didn't see you edited a previous comment:
.
It's your opinion that my comment was 'slanderous' - it was peacful untill you took offence. It was you that disliked what I said.
.
I did leave it at that... and I did not say that I 'disliked' the other 'link'. I merely wanted to compare my thoughts on the above statement and see how others understood it - it was a totally different reason for posting - I wanted to try and understand the relationship bias has with reasoning.
by Richard the Anonymous on October 29th, 2009
You assume much as you can see.
by Richard the Anonymous on October 29th, 2009
What am I trying to get at? Let me repost it and then reword it. It is not a trick question. "You also said that you have check several translations and manuscripts and suggested we do the same. Do you not believe in the Trinity because it doesn't fit with your preconceived ideas or did you come to that conclusion by comparing translations and manuscripts?"
Reworded: Is comparing translations and manuscripts the way that you came to your conclusion about the Trinity?
by Texasescimo on October 29th, 2009
Your first question was invalid because it did not apply to me as I said. I dont know why we are discussing things like this here - I guess it has slight relevance so I will answer your 'reworded' question:
.
Comparing translations and manuscripts played a part in my conclusion but the study was far wider and much more in-depth than just comparing the bible. However I do not consider my conclusion or understanding to be 'fixed' or 'conclusive' as there may be evidence I am not aware of and have not considered.
by Richard the Anonymous on October 29th, 2009
I was not raised in a religious household. Most of the rest of my family believes in the Trinity and is of the King James only camp.
As an adult, I originally studied out of the King James. As I saw things that did not add up, I spent a small fortune of different translations such as the Douay-Rheims that has Job praying to be protected in Hell. There are so many online resources now that most should not have to do that now.
.
Although we did not come to the conclusion in the same way, at least we came to the same conclusion.
What about 1Tim 3:16 "God manifested in the flesh" and John 3:13 where Jesus is in heaven at the same time he is on earth?
http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/7025764
.
What about 1John 5:7 "the three are one"? http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/7878748
.
What about John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14, "I AM"? http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/7931701
.
What about John 10:30 "I and my Father are one"? http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/7931701
.
Sure there are some things hard to understand, but don't think like most preachers teach that we don't look at anything other than the NWT.
by Texasescimo on October 29th, 2009
And I apologise if I made it sound like I was accusing you of only using the NWT - the 'you' was generalised for JW's and then I didn't exactly mean that all JW's only use the NWT - just that some probably do as there is a 'set' 'accpted' text.
.
I was not raised in a religios household either and do not belong to any organized religion. The main version I started to use at about age 10 was the KJV - only because we had a copy of that in our home that just collected dust on a shelf.
.
Anyway, we are a long way from 'bias' and 'reason' phylosophy now :) thanks for your input.
by Richard the Anonymous on October 29th, 2009
Apology accepted. I too apologize for getting overly defensive. I usually try to avoid being over aggressive and overly offending people and as I look back through my post, I was being kind of a jerk. Sorry.
by Texasescimo on October 29th, 2009
That's no problem - I find it to be an almost 'natural' response. In nature we can see that there is a natural response to anything seen to be a 'challenge' - sometimes called a threat - however it all depends on if we see that 'challenge' as a threat or an opportunity to evaluate and strangthen out beliefs.
.
"Whenever we confront new information or insights concerning ourselves, our family, or our values, our first reaction is to retreat in order to avoid change. At no time is this more true than when we confront new information regarding our faith. No matter what we believe, we tend to avoid that which causes us to rethink what we have been taught."
.
I think this statement is very true.
by Richard the Anonymous on October 30th, 2009
philosopher-saint
I agree with you. This quote make no sense at all.
Part of the problem is it was a bit of a typo, notice the wording is incorrect.
But aside from that, like with some quotes, context give us understanding of what was meant.
Though you may not care I will explain shortly. :D
by no_one_special on October 30th, 2009
HB
Excellent observations HB. I agree with what you have stateed. In fact I remember reading one of your answers about formal logic being a low form of conmmunicaton and I loved it.
That is very similar to what I say about the opinion defense. In a discussion people when not able to reason say, "well that's your opinion or your interpretation" but what is sought is not to be informed of the obvious, what one says in ones own opinion. No, rather the reasoning presented. :D
In any event, in my defense, as Tex pointed out, the wrong link was posted on the Question and the context was not given. :D
by no_one_special on October 30th, 2009
Tex, thank you for your observation of the wrong link given. An honest mistake on Anon's part.
And now it is only fair that I respond to Anon.
Anon I do not mean this in a disrespectful way so I ask you to read it calmly. Thank you Anon. :D
For anyone reading this, the following quotes are taken from http://www.answerbag.co.uk/a_view/8078896 and also the quote in the Question on this thread. :D
And will be the issue I will address.
Before I begin I would like to point out that between Oct, 28 2009 at 01:24 PM up to Oct, 28 2009 at 02:34 PM are in rapid succession. Please make a mental note. It will be relevant later. :D
Please give me a few minutes before anyone responds. Thank you. :D
by no_one_special on October 30th, 2009
Let us begin.
From the beginning I did not say bias was irrelevant.
Look at Oct, 26 2009 at 01:06 PM
Quote, "At times church history is relevant. At times it is not. So I ask for relevant evidence to be presented at this time."
Then Mister IT makes a suggestion..
Oct, 26 2009 at 12:06 PM
Mister It quote, "And, BTW, who cares what his "true" intentions are? If the Watchtower Society is true and sound then the evidence will support that assertion. If not, it won't."
In response to that I say:
Oct, 26 2009 at 02:38 PM
no one special quote, "A fair suggestion. :D"
Anonymous returns on Oct, 26 2009 at 04:51 PM to say I misunderstood.
Anonymous quote, "My motives was to simply see if what I had heard and read WAS accepted and what JW's have to say about it."
I understand what he is saying and explain JW teachings have adjusted. Therefore Anonymous claims are not accurate according to current JW teachings.
Oct, 26 2009 at 04:52 PM
Quote, "Very well. But you must understand JW teaching has adjusted as more information is understood."
On that very same comment I proceed to reason with Anon with an example..
Quote, no one special, "Also think, what good would it do any one of us to remind everyone of how the Catholic Church believed the earth was flat? Is it relevant to current church doctrine? No.
Can it be? That would depend on the subject."
Notice I said it would depend on subject if the "pointing out" of bias was relevant. Notice also I said, "Can it be?" and responded with an affirmative depending on subject.
Anonymous says there is lack of "reason" on the elder whom visits him among other things that leads him to his conclusions..
Oct, 26 2009 at 05:02 PM
Quote Anonymous, " I've seen enough lack of reason from my elder friend (amoung other things) to have an opinion about JW Theology."
by no_one_special on October 30th, 2009
no one special
Oct, 26 2009 at 05:05 PM
"Well again, please state your facts and your scriptural reasoning."
Nothing wrong with that right? I mean, that was Anonymous' problem, so he should be happy that a JW is wiling to engage him. :D
Anonymous
Oct, 26 2009 at 05:14 PM
"This is the same problem EVERY JW has! Bible bible bible bash. "
But he does not want to be challenged in his beliefs. He rather limit himself to challenging mine, which is fine I suppose. :D
But he tries and gives his problems with JW theology.
Oct, 27 2009 at 06:59 PM
"No-one-special asked me about JW teachings that I didn't believe to be in harmony with the bible. It was late when I posted last and it is late now and I really dont want to quote scripture refernces as it doesn't help me and it doesn't help you if im the one discovering for you annd not allowing you to discover things for ourselves. Anyway from memory:
1) Christ was ressurected with a body and was not a perfected spirit personage/creature as JW teach. Why? Because Christ said so himself. He entered the room where the disciples were miraculously without using the door."
And he gives an additional two to the above.
I then proceed to give a detailed explanation on to address his claims with reasoning from the scriptures and use no, I repeat no, JW material in my post nor the JW bible
Oct, 27 2009 at 11:36 PM.
Then I proceed to answer the second issue on
Oct, 28 2009 at 08:58 AM
"I will now address Romans 8:16"
.
Using Bible Gateway as my source for the NIV not the NWT for both replies and also the blue letter bible as a source once. No JW material was used. Only scriptural logic is used.
by no_one_special on October 30th, 2009
Oct, 28 2009 at 01:13 PM
"This scripure does not mention logic or reason "
.
Anonymous proceeds to show me where I am wrong.
Oct, 28 2009 at 01:19 PM
'Scriptural logic': logic is "A system of reasoning" http://www.thefreedictionary.com/logic
..
Reasoning: "1. Use of reason, especially to form conclusions, inferences, or judgments.
2. Evidence or arguments used in thinking or argumentation"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/reasoning
.
Reason: "The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence" The bible does not think! "
.
I address the claim that the bible in fact does give a principle and that"reasoning" is necessary from a scriptural stand point..
Oct, 28 2009 at 01:24 PM
"Acts 17:2
As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead. "This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ," he said."
.
Romans 15:4
"For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope."
.
How is one taught unless he reasons on what is being read or said? How is there a correction if there is not a weighing of facts with reason?"
.
After a little back and forth Anonymous calls in his wife to set me straight.
by no_one_special on October 30th, 2009
Anonymous
Oct, 28 2009 at 01:56 PM
"My wife is coming online to tell you how wrong you are with those statements!"
.
But on Oct, 28 2009 at 02:03 PM she, kindly says the problem is JWs instead of addressing the issues of doctrine.
.
Anonymous
Oct, 28 2009 at 02:04 PM
"This is why JW's should use many versions and not trust one comitee (A JW comitee) to create a translation"
.
But he forgot I used the NIV and not the JWs NWT for my responses.
.
Also the fact escapes him that we use many translations even in the door to door ministry. I carry four or five with me in a big book bag. But not all do, nor is it necessary since the householder usually has their own and we still use theirs to show them the reasoning :D
.
Now remember the accusation Anon has made that I said bias was irrelvant. Notice what I say next and keep that in mind as you read along. :D
Oct, 28 2009 at 02:07 PM
Perhaps you missed that I told your husband I have been an atheist up until three years ago.
.
I also questioned, not the Watchtower but the reasoning. To question the Watchtower would be an Ad Hom, highly illogical. Read my profile and see that we all have bias. But to mention it is irrelevant because the reasoning is not examined."
.
Now I should have said "To question the Watchtower would be irrelevant in this instance. Read my profile and see that I know we all have bias. But to mention it is irrelevant because the reasoning that the Watchtower presents is what is valid or not."
by no_one_special on October 30th, 2009
At this point the wife returns
relevant. :D
riholt Oct, 28 2009 at 02:10 PM
"What's an Ad Hom?"
.
Anon tries to bring it back to the Watchtower.
Oct, 28 2009 at 02:14 PM
"However the reasoning comes from the organization - men - the governing body."
.
Again he forgets only the bible was used. And to mention bias only gets us so far. Like saying, "that's your opinion" only gets one so far in intelligent conversations. :D
.
I then inform the wife of fallacies being used by Anon.
Oct, 28 2009 at 02:15 PM
Straw Man
.
"A straw man is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
.
Wife returns
Oct, 28 2009 at 02:16 PM
"Ok so erm... to save me a lot of time (sorry) could you tell me what it is I'm meant to be answering? (this is answerbag after all :)"
.
My response is at the same time as the wife so I did not address her in my next comment. But look at this response.
Oct, 28 2009 at 02:16 PM
"I hope that, although we all have bias, you are intelligent and honest enough to understand when bias matters less than the reasoning presented.
.
Lets agree to stay fallacy free in our exchange of thought.
.
Thank you."
.
Here I quote verbatim what is on my profile. Remember what Anon is accusing me of.
by no_one_special on October 30th, 2009
Anon
Oct, 28 2009 at 02:19 PM
"I have no case to present and this is not my purpose - I know my views - I was only suggesting that you question some of yours"
.
Really? Didn't sound like it. :D
.
But, for the sake of letting it go, I thank him and give him a tip as well.
Oct, 28 2009 at 02:29 PM
Well thank you for your suggestion and I have and continue to ask many questions where I need clarification..........You are correct in saying it is beneficial to consult other translations. I do and am glad you do as well.
.
Before I begin I would like to point out that between Oct, 28 2009 at 01:24 PM up to Oct, 28 2009 at 02:34 PM are in rapid succession. Please make a mental note. It will be relevant later. :D
.
I then address his wife.
Oct, 28 2009 at 02:30 PM
@riholt
"He may do his research and that is good. But here and now is relevant and thus far has not even come close to presenting a logical argument for his position."
.
Shortly after we see the quote he has an issue with and the one he even makes a question for AB.
.
Here it is, now remember what I have said in the past about bias and how it is relevant and how it depends more on the topic. Also remember what I just said to his wife.
.
no one special
Oct, 28 2009 at 02:34 PM
"So are either of you guys present your case or will you continue with irrelevancies of every sort?
.
If your goal was to encourage anyone to seek the truth I applaud you and know that I have already done so.
.
I have much to learn and am looking forward to it.
.
I encourage to you to understand when bias is irrelevant because the reasoning is what makes a conclusion valid. Its simple logic"
.
Now remember in the beginning I said to take note of how fast the comments were being shot back and forth and remember the context in which I said bias was relevant. Notice my wording is wrong, a typo, reason being I had to leave for work shortly.
.
So you see, I never said bias was irrelevant but that the subject/topic/issue would determine how much of a bearing bias has thus its relevancy in this case is moot since doctrine is being examined in light of scripture not in light of any particular organizations past flaws.
by no_one_special on October 30th, 2009
OK done. :D
by no_one_special on October 30th, 2009
Good I'm glad your done. Nobody actually really cares - 'irrelevant' was not a 'typo'. One crazy typo to make that big a mistake. I could never be a JW - I find your "circular logic" to be highly confusing - by the time you finish whatever the point is your making it's so 'dizzy' - jumping all over the place. Ever tried spinning around really quickly? See how long it took you to explain how what you said was actually the total opposite of what you meant to say because of a 'typo'? Waste of time! I have no time for people like you - you end up going in 'circles' and get nowhere.
by Richard the Anonymous on October 30th, 2009
"Conclusion" =
Don't it seem that outta all the words in the language, it's a particularly 'dangerous' one?
The connotation is that there's no further need to consider/discuss that paticular phenomenon of the human condition; you've 'concluded' with it.
But what really is 'conclusive' at the end of the day?
;-)
by philosopher-saint on October 30th, 2009
Anonymous
I am sorry Anon. It seems I really bothered you. I know we got off on the wrong foot but I thought we progressed from that.
You are correct, "irrelevant" is not a typo. Notice I did not say that. I said that a typo happened because of the rapid typing we all were doing. I provide all the comments in where I quoted verbatim from my profile.
I stated that "I hope that, although we all have bias, you are intelligent and honest enough to understand when bias matters less than the reasoning presented."
I think we all agree that we all have bias. Yes I did say bias at times is irrelevant.
By the way it didn't take me a long time to explain what I said. It took em a long time to give context to what I said, since you .
I will now do it as I could have. But decided not to so that all was brought into context.
by no_one_special on October 30th, 2009
Here let me do it this way: "I encourage to you to understand when bias is irrelevant because the reasoning is what makes a conclusion valid."
Lets see how that really is not that much different from what I say in my profile.
"I encourage to you to understand when bias is irrelevant (not that it always is)because (and here is the point)the reasoning is what makes a conclusion valid."
Granted, Perhaps I should have said, "the premise" instead of "reasoning."
Though it is really the same. But I'll let it go, a moot point.
The problem Anon is that you quoted me out of context. The context in this case is scriptural logic and not classical logic. Which I was not attempting in the first place.
Therefore, it was permissible for me to say bias is irrelevant in this instance, since we are using the bible as the last word on matters of doctrine and not what the Watchtower has or had not done.
For example:
As if attacking the Catholic church because of what happened to Galileo has anything to to with the validity of the Trinity doctrine or Holy water.
.
To suggest that Holy water is not good or a false practice because Galileo showed the world was not the center of the universe and the Church did not like it, is illogical, stupid and without sense.
.
Whether the Catholic church is bias whether the debaters are Catholics, Mormons, Atheist or any other combination of the debaters, whether classical logic or otherwise, to state the bias of the Church is irrelevant in that instance.
by no_one_special on October 30th, 2009
Philosopher Saint thanks for responding. :D
Quote, "Don't it seem that outta all the words in the language, it's a particularly 'dangerous' one?"
What are you referring to?
Quote, "The connotation is that there's no further need to consider/discuss that paticular phenomenon of the human condition; you've 'concluded' with it."
Not at all. As I have stated before, at times it is quite relevant. At times it is not. So I did not conclude that no further discussion is needed. I concluded that no further discussion is needed if the point is superfluous.
by no_one_special on October 30th, 2009
Anonymous notice on Oct, 30 2009 at 10:49 AM to philosopher-saint
"I agree with you. This quote make no sense at all.
Part of the problem is it was a bit of a typo, notice the wording is incorrect.
But aside from that, like with some quotes, context give us understanding of what was meant.
Though you may not care I will explain shortly. :D"
I never said it was all a typo. I said a bit of a typo and pointed to the wording. I never said the word "irrelevant" was a typo. It was only to show how I was in a rush when I typed what I did.
Though it changes very little from what I already say on my profile it is still in harmony with what I am trying to get across if one looks at the context.
Then, I say "But aside from that, like with some quotes, context give us understanding of what was meant."
So I didn't just dodge it or dismiss it. I said the proper context was necessary.
Next time you quote anyone Anon, the best and most honest thing to do is give the quote context so that misunderstandings do not happen.
No big deal though, we all make mistakes.
I hope there is no hard feelings?
by no_one_special on October 30th, 2009
"Quote, 'Don't it seem that outta all the words in the language, it's a particularly 'dangerous' one?'
What are you referring to?" =
-
It seems to me that once the word "conclusion" is understood with any measure of permanence, one is on a very fast track to error (at the least!). One of my 'top ten all-time' favourite quotations heads-up my AB 'profile'. It may amuse you?
-
;-)
by philosopher-saint on November 1st, 2009
LOL! That is funny, I love it. :D
Yes I agree-depending on context.
Context is a key to asses the correctness or acceptableness of the words being used. Acceptableness might be a better word. :D
If I say "I hate tomatoes" the word "hate" is a strong word. Then supposing someone says, "hate is a strong word, you can't really hate" it would be considered nit picking since "hate" was perhaps not really meant to the degree hate can encompass.
Though I do see why you mention it. Since what I said, my quote, was taken out of context. The conversation was the context and if you see my profile and my defense, you will see that I do not hold the view that "bias" is always irrelevant. ;-)
Likewise when some reach a conclusion, it is tentative until further evidence is brought forth.
So "conclusion" in its strict sense is not to be assumed, without context.
Is it correct? Perhaps not, but the context permits its use. :-D
by no_one_special on November 1st, 2009