Just Do It

Post Reply New Topic

Content based upon fact doesn't mean that poetic discussions are oriented towards evaluating factual claims about an external world. In such, we don't regard them as "pursuing this"

........ Tax policy is kind of like poetry. Is this the same way that stupid positions are kind of like intelligent positions? Does tax policy depend on disposition? Somewhat. Does tax policy depend on disposition entirely? No, some ideas are just bad. Some ideas get more discredited as time goes on. Some position is actually objective better than the other position by the large set of metrics used.

dionysian...... why not just argue that mathematics is also like poetry in that it is a creative act to generate some pattern that no human being has brought forth before..... I mean, at some point, we have to recognize that a label is meant as a dividing line.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 05 Jun 2011, 8:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I am sorry, just the idea doesn't seem that rational.


Just develop a thicker skin.

In general art demands the capabilities of observation, analysis,comprehension of various aspects of phenomena, abstracting elements of these observations and manipulating them to reveal novel concepts which may involve truth, fantasy, attitudes, social constructions, etc.These abilities may be sharpened by training and knowledge of what has been accomplished before or they my be so acute in the basic makeup of the individual that formal training is not particularly necessary or even may be detrimental. Duchamp and Warhol have shown that mere perception of commonplace objects as art can change their perception in an aesthetic way to give them acceptance. In modern times art has accepted such a wide variety of objects and activities that the field is exceedingly difficult to pin down. I have seen wonderful things made by three year olds and by workmen merely creating objects whose form and aspects are merely necessary for them to perform correctly. The demands for academic training in the field for qualification is grotesque nonsense promulgated by total ignorance of the nature of the field.

I don't know anyone who believes that. If you had restricted the claim to talking about public performances, it would seem like less of an absurd strawman designed to bash some anonymous person.


The opinion of an educated person does outweigh the opinion of an uneducated person. Period. If the discussion turns to evidence for one belief or another, than anyone can provide it and the evidence should be examined on its own, but when we are speaking of opinions, yes, it makes sense to ignore the person who has no clue what he's talking about in favor of the person who is actually informed.


That depends on the structure of the collective. Science operates on a consensus basis- individual scientists will be biased and often wrong, and their competitors may be wrong in different ways. Science has a consensus-building process which helps to sort out individual stupidity into a collective accumulation of correct knowledge.


Agreed. I was trained to be an orchestral trombonist, and I'm reasonably good at it now. I'm also a really awful bass singer, but my church choir doesn't mind that, and if they tolerate another year or so of missed notes I might get halfway decent.


Not really. Formal education is a familiarization with the current state of the field. Some of the ideas presented may be wrong, but they are the closest approximations to truth available with current knowledge.


Such events are very much the exception rather than the rule. You are almost certainly succumbing to the availability heuristic- you pay no attention to the millions of times the experts are right and the random crank is just a moron (because that is what always happens and is not news) but you remember for the rest of your life the one time the random crank happened to be right by accident.


This is technically true, but highly misleading. The consensus of experts is by far the best proxy available for truth. Experts, by definition, understand a field well enough to meaningfully analyze the information available, and are much more likely than some random bloke off the street to come to correct conclusions. When a very large number of experts, or a near-unanimity of experts, agree that something is true, that should be given a lot of weight because it means the evidence strongly favors the conclusion they have reached.


And you know how it continues? The rest of the collective realizes that the one person's idea has merit and adopts it. The consensus is somewhat conservative to change because it is always cautious to actually check results to see if they hold up.


Not pointing at people, except those you point at, huh? Well, on two of the three stances you are wrong, and on the other one you are arguing against a position no one holds. So... triple fail.

When I started this, I had no idea how many hornets would rise up to protect their nest. It really makes me feel like Socrates asking for hemlock with the loungers in the agora.

I am going to deal extensively with the extensive and rather typisch post from the ironically self-styled Orwell.

My proposition A"

A. Only trained, certified, professional musicians and artists should produce art and music. Others should keep still even in the privacy of their own home.

To which Orwell replied

I don't know anyone who believes that. If you had restricted the claim to talking about public performances, it would seem like less of an absurd strawman designed to bash some anonymous person.

It is really amazing that people assume that I have constructed a straw man - woman actually - with this one, that no such person could exist.

If I had not been so long acquent with Wee Coryl, I might myself find it hard to believe. She was my primary contact enunciating this doctrine, though not the nly one. I softened it - I could have included the view that THE standard of beauty is that of the fashion and film magazines, but I kept it to this.

IF I wanted to bash somebody I would not keep it anonymous.

IF I wanted to bash somebody, I would in most cases do it via private message.

AND - whatever Orwell and some others may do, I do not lie or prune the facts. I may present something I have too uncritically heard from another source - but I do not make it up AND
I will thank everybody not to accuse me of such.

My second proposition was:

B. The opinion of an educated person with a degree outweighs anything said by someone who, like Jesus, has never studied.

To which Orwell replied:

The opinion of an educated person does outweigh the opinion of an uneducated person. Period. If the discussion turns to evidence for one belief or another, than anyone can provide it and the evidence should be examined on its own, but when we are speaking of opinions, yes, it makes sense to ignore the person who has no clue what he's talking about in favor of the person who is actually informed.

Orwell is of course entitled to his opinion, and in fact the whole reason FOR this thread was to see where people stand on this.

As I have already noted my opinion, there is no need to reiterate it, It is not as if we are debating anything.

Third Proposition:

C. The opinion of a collective is more trustworthy than that of any individual.

Orwell's reply:

That depends on the structure of the collective. Science operates on a consensus basis- individual scientists will be biased and often wrong, and their competitors may be wrong in different ways. Science has a consensus-building process which helps to sort out individual stupidity into a collective accumulation of correct knowledge.

Again, a straight answer to a straightforward request for data; again my view has already been recorded.

Why not? One opinion is clearly better than the other. One opinion clearly has to be better than the other. Why deny us the opportunity to correct whomever is wrong?

At the end of his post. Orwell cites me:

Quote:
So. That is me. AG has repeatedly said where he stands on this. Others?

And goes on:

Not pointing at people, except those you point at, huh? Well, on two of the three stances you are wrong, and on the other one you are arguing against a position no one holds. So... triple fail.

First, I said at the start that this is a composite from several sources. AG has fairly clearly stated - repeatedly - his stance on the second and third propositions, which appears to come close to Orwells, though they are not necessarily identical. AG has stated he knows of nobody holding to the first proposition, which means he is not acquent with Wee Coryl or anyone of that ilk.

Orwell seems to think I am somehow implying he DOES hold that view. It never occurred to me, and I certainly did not say so, and I am a whole lot worse at implying than some are at making baseless inferences.

Orwell - puzzlingly - goes on to say that my stances on experts and consensus are wrong. How can that be? There is no exam, there is no debate, this is an exchange of opinions.

Could Orwell be saying he is "right" and I am "wrong" because he is an educated certified expert and I am not? Surely not. Sight unseen, I will measure my credentials against his any day.

Could Orwell be saying he is "right" and I am "wrong" because he agrees with a consensus? Surely not. Where is this consensus? Why is it better than a consensus sayibg the opposite? Is it that a king who asserts the divine right of kings beats a king who does not - or even three of a kind?

As for "arguing against a position no one holds" - pig slop. I assert again, there ARE people who hold that position and I have met them. Am I a liar because I do not have it in a refereed journal? If I has anticipated that I would have asked Wee Coryl for permission to publish her.

What possible motive would I have for lying about it?

Further - I am not arguing. I am stating my opinions, jusxtaposing them with opinions I have heard from others, and seeking more data.

"Triple fail?" Don't make me laugh. Save it for when I enroll in your class and take your fossilized factoid spitback exam.

Your posts, Philologos, indicate you have discovered at least one person with a grotesque concept of how and why and who should be involved in producing art and you march forth with all bugles blowing and banners waving to confront this cuckoo concept as if it were a widespread opinion and you are rushing to the rescue. Put down your banners, pay off the buglers and tell them to go home, go somewhere and have a pleasant cup of tea or a glass of cool beer and try to realize the world may be insane in other matters but not this one.

Except that the ultimate question isn't a subjective one. It's the objective question of "What way can we best arrive at the best beliefs given the set of data that is known?" Saying that there is no exam is irrelevant. Truth wasn't invented by exams, exams only measured what was already considered true.

Even further, PPR is notably very much not oriented from a cultural standpoint to "let's just exchange opinions". People think they are right. They will present reasons why they are right, and deride the undefended opinion. In some sense, they OUGHT to do that.


.................. Surely your rhetorical questions aren't serious. Orwell gives his reasons. The only thing he doesn't do is put them in outright syllogisms, and he doesn't need to.


You do realize that even clear thinking isn't "factoid spitback". I mean, a physics class will have preset answers, BUT the focus is going to be on method, not spitting back factoids. Sometimes answers are just the best answer, and there isn't a real right to dissent.

I don't think you can demonstrate this without relying on some arbitrary, subjective statement.

Let's see:
1) There are facts about objective reality.
2) The question of which method is better at arriving at truths about objective reality is a factual question about objective reality. (The objective reality being whether a method is more likely to generate claims that correspond to an objective reality)
3) Therefore, there is a fact about whether a particular method is better or worse than other methods.

Both 1 and 2 aren't arbitrary. 1 is pretty much just a definition. 2 is also pretty basically definitional as well. 3 is basically my conclusion. Now, I can get more involved into some of the details, but I thought that would likely confuse the matter, as it would be to clarify objections you didn't raise.

Look, go bloody debate in your own threads where I have been called bad boy for not debating.

Then go talk to ruveyn who claims there is no such thing as a wrong belief.'

WHERE STANDS IT WRITTEN one opinion is better than another? Better for what? For whom?

If I ask who is over 6 feet tall, and mention that I am myself over six feet tall [never you mind how wide], why should I have to listen to you and Orwell shouting "fail;! !! !!"?

At least I know the difference between an opinion, an expert opinion, an assumed fact, a consensus theory and a chunk of goat cheese.

Well- they are wrong, as far as can be measured. And PPR is not just "I'll say what I believe and you say what you believe and then everyone stop talking, and certainly never criticize the other belief." The opposite, rather: one person will present an opinion, another person will state a disagreement, ideally with reasons for that disagreement, and so on the process goes. This does involve both people thinking the other is wrong; in some cases who that is will be more obvious than in others.


I don't really feel like putting my real name on here for people to verify, but I would gladly put my credentials against yours. And no, credentials here are not the reason for my assertion that you are wrong. I gave specific reasons for my stances to which I do not believe you have any rebuttal, hence your strange replies.


Fine then, I amend that to "arguing against a position almost no one holds, and everyone else in the world already knows to ignore those people anyways so arguing against them is futile."


How would I ever go about guessing as to your motives?