Definition Discussions
Definition DiscussionsThis is a temporary holding spot for definition-related discussions that perhaps can be classified better in the future when changes settle down.
From DatabaseDefinition:
Re: "People like top would only be happy with a scholarly fellow arguing that "'Database' is fuzzy. You can call anything you want a database. You could even call my cat a database, and I couldn't prove you were wrong even though I might be disinclined to agree with you. There is no right or wrong; EverythingIsRelative." Anyhow, dropping that tangent: supposing you were dealing with people who actually cared about precise and accurate definitions"
For one, C2 is not just for academia. And I do not believe you have "precise and accurate definitions" of "facts" (the context word of the above). It will probably be tied to some base subjective assumption, like all the other definitions that some of you academia types have claimed were "accurate", including "intent". -- top
[C2 isn't a fiction site, therefore, even if it is "not just for academia", your sophistry doesn't belong on C2. You've already played HumptyDumpty with the definitions of "objective" and "subjective" to suit your needs, so there is no point arguing with you. We'd be better off just deleting most of what you write.]
If it's not fiction, then why are the roots of your definitions based on things that are in people's heads? Hypocrite!
[Hypocrite? Do you believe that there is nothing in people's heads? Damn, I might believe it true about YOUR head. Idiot.]
No, there's "fiction" in there.
[I've noticed. And, usually, there is "information" in there, too, but it seems there is nothing but fiction in your head. Worse, your fiction is internally inconsistent, like poorly written fanfiction.]
Like measuring "intent" is consistent.
[I'm thoroughly convinced that "intent" as I've used the word is at least as consistent as measuring "database"-ness, and nearly as fundamental as measuring "data" or "time". But we've already had this argument three or four times, so let's not repeat it (again) here.]
[Yet another SelfStandingEvidenceDiscussion from TopMind.]
Re: You've already played HumptyDumpty with the definitions of "objective" and "subjective" to suit your needs
We implement UsefulLies for the customer using UsefulLie tools. If they also happen to match "reality", that's a bonus.
[An abstraction is incomplete, not an untruth or 'lie'. You should learn the difference. AllAbstractionsLie is an abstraction and a lie - a pair of statements that is not at all redundant.]
You should learn clarity and precision. And to recognize and admit when it does not exist.
[You should learn enough ComputerScience to ask precise and meaningful questions when you need clarification, and you should avoid arguing and providing advice in fields for which you are no better than a misinformed layman (such as type theory).]
Lurn to produce concrete measurable evidence instead of webby chains of befuddled reasoning. See PageAnchor: "Vetting" under BookStop.
[Learn classical logic instead of getting befuddled by perfectly good reasoning because you're too busy holding invalid assumptions. "Vet" yourself first.]
If they are invalid, prove it with logic and facts. Show you are smart, don't claim it.
[Sigh. You resort so easily to ShiftingTheBurdenOfProof. If I made assumptions that you aren't willing to accept, I could ask for your reasons of non-acceptance, but it would ultimately be my burden to provide reason and evidence support the assumptions that I am making. I don't have DoubleStandards here, so when YOU hold assumptions that I'm not willing to accept, I might provide a few reasons for my non-acceptance, but it is ultimately YOUR burden to provide reason and evidence supporting your assumptions.]
[Besides, logic can only prove things to logical people. Facts can only prove things to people who are willing to accept them. To illogical people, logic is just "webby chains of befuddled reasoning" and facts are just "words on a page that don't prove anything". It is not my job to convince a man that his reasoning is flawed. The best I can do is point out the flaws as clearly as possible and hope the man is willing and able to recognize them. Even if the man is unwilling or unable to recognize the flaws, be it due to circular reasoning or vested interest, pointing out the flaws will at least HelpTheReaderDecide.]
Bull. Almost all our debates come down to either definition interpretation or TooManyVariablesForScience, not logic. If it was just logic, then it could be gradually refined into outline and/or equation form until the point of difference stares everybody in the face. But you never get your claims clean enough to pull this off. Past attempts to try this expose at least one "fuzzy variable" that becomes the weakest link. You make the common human mistake of mistaking feelings and fuzzy notions for absolute truth.
ObjectiveEvidenceAgainstGotosDiscussionTwo shows an example. The debater got so caught up in error-checking that they didn't realize they were focusing too narrow until the end and had to back-peddle on the scope of the original claim. This after calling my logic skills "5th grade". Why should I believe your name-calling has any merit after stuff like that? If you cannot apply your allegedly great education to prove that blocks are objectively net better than goto's (which was selected as a proving ground), then what about your more complicated pet GoldenHammers? -t
[Sigh. TopMind, it is unreasonable for you to have a topic-title like "evidence against gotos" then demand "proof that gotos are objectively worse" or that sort of nonsense. Proof is a much higher level claim than 'evidence against'. Evidence is stuff that can pile up, one incident and one example at a time both for AND against something, and the evidence for a concept doesn't make the evidence against a concept disappear. You were told, quite clearly: "I assumed this was about 'ObjectiveEvidenceAgainstGotos' and so my only intent with the example was to meet those conditions ('objective evidence' 'against gotos'); I certainly never thought it was the end of the "Goto Olympics"." If you couldn't at least acknowledge: "yeah, that's evidence, and it might even be objective" even while saying "OTOH, it ain't proof that gotos are useless", then that is your failure. The scope was clearly denoted by the title. You got up in arms by once again assuming the wrong scope for the claim in the first place.]
I made it quite clear early on that I didn't dispute that specific objective benefits may exist. Roughly 1/3 the way into the debate I stated: "Narrow rigor is not necessarily the same as thorough rigor or useful rigor. And I don't "expect" anybody to show all possible metrics. The more metrics and the more aspects they cover, the better. Your evidence gets a better grade. You have not even scratched the surface [toward demonstrating] your absolute claims, though."
It thus appears to be back-tracking on claims; either that a huge mis-communication that wasn't detected until the end, but I find this hard to believe given the long discussion about micro- versus macro-rigor that sparked the debate to begin with. I already agreed that micro-rigor exists for it in many ways, including repeated references to SovietShoeFactoryPrinciple. -t
[Hmmm... what is this "macro-rigor"? Where can you point out its existence in any sciences? If you're thinking things like "speed for the whole rocket", why does whole-program computability of safety issues not qualify? If you're thinking things like "knowledge of how the nose-cone affects heat shielding when falling through the atmosphere" then why is it macro-rigor if such a choice depends so heavily on hundreds of other design decisions (TooManyVariablesForScience) and 'better' is simply a matter of priorities? Did the other participant ever express skepticism about 'macro-rigor'? If so, it is likely that the other participant feels, as I do, that your entire "micro- vs macro-" discussion is a strawman and not particularly relevant to rigor or evidence in sciences.]
If they did have big issues with it, they should have cleared those up before starting on a long debate about Gotos. (Some seem to suggest that "macro-rigor" is more akin to "economics", and whether economics is a "science" may come up.) Anyhow, that would fall under LaynesLaw, not me presenting objectively "bad logic" for pivotal issues.
[It seems clear when I look at it. Just glancing at the top of two prior pages related to ObjectiveEvidenceAgainstGotosDiscussionTwo: "Any claim that someone should prove X better for all factors in all cases is either naive or extremely dishonest." and "MuAnswer, better for what?" I feel you're being dishonest in saying that the other participant was "back-tracking on the scope of his original claims" when it is apparent he had been assaulting your 'macro-rigor' position from the start.]
I didn't say "in all cases". Essentially what I proposed was some kind of inventory of metrics with some kind of demonstration that the total benefits of approach B outweigh the benefits of approach A, in terms of quantity and/or weight. As usual, you are exaggerating.
[Sigh. If you have opposition to the quotes (and many others like it: "Also bogus is your entire 'X is better' line of argument"), then take them up on the ObjectiveEvidenceAgainstGotosDiscussion page in which they are found. I'm only pointing these quotes out as abundant and clear evidence that the other participant "had big issues with" your 'macro-rigor' position, and that it was brought up repeatedly, and thus you can't argue that the other guy was "back-tracking on the scope of his original claims". I happen to agree with the objection of said participant: your "total benefits of approach B" is meaningless. Essentially, what you proposed was some kind of inventory of metrics with some kind of demonstration that an imaginary property of approach B will outweigh an imaginary property of approach A in terms of quantity and/or weight. Essentially, what you propose is nonsense.]
You use "some kind" repeatedly as if it's my job to supply the inventory. Nor do I expect everyone to agree on the inventory ranking. I only expect the reasoning and rankings behind it to be well-thought-out AND CLEAR. How one goes about that is up to the macro-benefits claimer. And if such is not possible for whatever reason, that is not my fault either. --top
[I use "some kind" repeatedly because I was parroting your words and you used "some kind" repeatedly. I'm utterly mystified as to how you didn't catch that reference. I agree that if someone said "X is objectively better" without implicit or explicit context, purpose, scope, or constraints, then you might be justified in your expectations. But I've not seen such claims. If you're inventing these "macro-benefits claimers" in your own mind, that is your failure.]
That's what the discussion was about. If the other dude wondered off topic somehow, that's not my fault.
[No, the discussion was about ObjectiveEvidenceAgainstGotos. It was even called "ObjectiveEvidenceAgainstGotosDiscussion". You were pushing very hard to take it off topic.]
Titles could not and should not carry every scope limiter and legal disclaimer. That's not the purpose of titles. We've had this "title" debate already and I have nothing new to add to it this time. And, macro-rigor related to goto's is STILL technically on-topic since "micro-rigor" is not in the name. You jump back and forth between anal and loosey-goosey as you please to suit your claims.
[Make a distinction, Top: you were broadening the scope, not limiting it. I'm consistent in resisting both narrowing and broadening of title-implied scope. Anyhow, if I recall correctly, you injected the 'macro-rigor' comments at the top of the ObjectiveEvidenceAgainstGotos page only after it had been running for a while, then you started complaining that people hadn't been meeting your recently declared expectations, and now you're saying that it's the "other dudes" who "wondered off topic somehow". Sigh. You're just digging that social grave of yours deeper and deeper.]
That's bullshit! I did NOT post-insert topic changes. I have an urge to call you some extreme names, but I am trying to constrain myself. Your bias against me is again making you imagine all kinds of dastardly deeds that simply didn't happen.
For what it's worth, I would note that the ObjectiveEvidenceAgainstGotosDiscussion was started fairly long after ObjectiveEvidenceAgainstGotos.
I'm tired of arguing about arguing anyhow. Let's focus on something "techie" if we're gonna bicker this much.
EditText of this page
(last edited January 16, 2009)
or FindPage with title or text search