Page 1 of 9 12345 ... Last
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Heimat
    Posts
    4,182
    Style
    Judo
    3
    Hell yeah! Hell no!

    Hey Phrost...do some actual research.

    Come on man. RTFM before posting.

    You had ONE SHOT to push "Razors – Weapons of Intellectual Self Defense in the Age of Bullshit", and you blew it.

    Phrost says:



    This is an error I've corrected before...who can tell what Phrost's fuckup is here?
    Last edited by Pship Destroyer; 8/02/2017 7:46pm at .

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    291
    Style
    what style?
    1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Pship Destroyer View Post
    Come on man. RTFM before posting.

    You had ONE SHOT to push "Razors – Weapons of Intellectual Self Defense in the Age of Bullshit", and you blew it.

    Phrost says:



    This is an error I've corrected before...who can tell what Phrost's fuckup is here?
    Ockham stated the principle in various ways, but the most popular version, "Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" (Non sunt multiplicanda entia sine necessitate) was formulated by the Irish Franciscan philosopher John Punch in his 1639 commentary on the works of Duns Scotus.[8]
    From Wiki

    Maybe this is a misquotation of Ockham and actually comes from John Punch..

    or the latin is translated incorrectly;

    pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate, “plurality should not be posited without necessity.”

    I don't know?
    Last edited by lant3rn; 8/02/2017 10:41pm at .

  3. #3
    7
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    So you're saying that a single line in the entire article, referring to a translation from Latin, which you don't agree with, undermines the entire piece?

    Hyperbolic much?

    It's one thing to fact check a translation, it's another to go all 8-Mile, mom's spaghetti as if I was trying to "Lose Myself" in some sort of intellectual rap battle.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    439
    Style
    Judo, Nippon Kempo
    4
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    My understanding (from my memories of history of philosophy in high school, so many years ago and not a great knowledge anyways) is this:

    In Occam times, the scholastic (Christian) philosophy included theology and "natural philosophy" [what we would call natural sciences].
    In this view, many natural phenomena were attributed to direct or indirect divine intervention, like the idea that angels moved the stars etc. (also the stars were supposed to be an immutable plane of existence and not really part of our material world as we think it today).

    Various philosophers/theologians wrote their theories about how the world worked, however, in particular regarding astronomy where stars were supposed to be closer to God and the angels, these theories were contemporaneously treaties about astrology and theological treaties about God and the angels.

    As various philosophers added angel after angel to their explanation of how the world works, the final result was an enormous quantity of supposed angelical entities.

    Some rationalists like Duns Scoto and Occam (both from the same scottish school) were pissed of from this continuous recourse to "hipothise another angel" and came out with the "economic principle" that you really shouldn't postulate the existence of a new angel/metaphisical entity just because you feel like it, so both the formulations:

    "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem" -> entities (angels) shouldn't be multiplied if it isn't strictly necessarious
    "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate" -> a multiplicity (of angels) shouldn't be assumed if it isn't strictly necessarious

    amount to the same thing.

    However it should be noted that, while this kind of rationalism marked one shift from middle-age thinkng to modern thinking, Occam really was referring strictli to the "entities" of his times (the angels), and not to the much wider concept of "Occam's razor" that we think today.

    Somewhat funnily, according to wikipedia Aristotle already had expressed our "Occam's razor" in a way that is much closer to our thinking:

    Aristotle writes in his Posterior Analytics, "We may assume the superiority ceteris paribus [other things being equal] of the demonstration which derives from fewer postulates or hypotheses."
    EDIT: link to wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%..._before_Ockham

    Though I have no idea why wikipedia puts a latin expression [ceteris paribus] in Aristotle's mouth and then translates it as if it was Aristotle's original speech.
    Last edited by MisterMR; 8/03/2017 4:38am at . Reason: edit: link to wikipedia

  5. #5
    DCS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,485
    Style
    Jits
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by MisterMR View Post
    Though I have no idea why wikipedia puts a latin expression [ceteris paribus] in Aristotle's mouth and then translates it as if it was Aristotle's original speech.
    Cut and paste from any of the many works that use this: http://www.worldcat.org/title/basic-...e/oclc/1406055

  6. #6
    17
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Look
    If you had
    One shot
    Or one opportunity
    To write an article about bullshit
    In one moment
    Would you capture
    Or just let it slip?

    Yo
    His balls are sweaty, keys weak, mouse is heavy
    There's Latin on his sweater already, hommo ecce
    He's nervous, but on the surface he looks calm and ready
    For F-bombs, but he keeps mistranslatin'
    What he wrote down, the forums whine so loud
    He lays his post down, but the words won't come out
    He's chokin', how, everybody's jokin' now
    The clocks run out, times up, over, blaow!

    Snap back to reality, oops there goes Phrosty he
    Don't give a crap that he
    Screwed up some Latin he
    Wrote a damn fine piece and
    Now, he's run the joke in
    to the ground but he has to go on
    it's way too far gone
    and he's forgotten the beat to the original song
    but he's still typing and something about Detroit

  7. #7
    3
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Anyway, if anyone would like to suggest a correction, feel free.

  8. #8
    ermghoti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    OW, MY KNEE
    Posts
    4,633
    Style
    BJJ+Sanda
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Isn't the easiest way to explain Occam to slow people to just relate it to the physician's hoofbeats analogy?
    "Systema, which means, 'the system'..."

    Quote Originally Posted by strikistanian View Post
    DROP SEIONAGI ************! Except I don't know Judo, so it doesn't work, and he takes my back.
    Quote Originally Posted by Devil
    Why is it so goddamn hard to find a video of it? I've seen videos I'm pretty sure are alien spacecraft. But still no good Krav.
    Quote Originally Posted by Plasma
    At the point, I must act! You see my rashguard saids "Jiu Jitsu vs The World" and "The World" was standing in front me teaching Anti-Grappling in a school I help run.
    [quote=SoulMechanic]Thank you, not dying really rewarding in more ways than I can express.[/[quote]

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    439
    Style
    Judo, Nippon Kempo
    4
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by ermghoti View Post
    Isn't the easiest way to explain Occam to slow people to just relate it to the physician's hoofbeats analogy?
    My understanding is that "physician hoofbeats" refers to the statistically most likely hypothesis, while "Occam's razor" refers to the number of assumptions needed to substance an hipothesis.

    For example, suppose that some chinese monk spends his life doing "ki" exercises and at some point he is able to lift an enormous amount of stuff. There are 2 explanations:

    1) Ki exists and the monk has a lot of it;
    2) The monk's muscles just became stronger because of the exercise.

    Occam's razors favours explanation 2 because explanation 1 needs the assumption that some misterious and otherwise unperceptible energy "ki" exists.

    However if you for some reason already believe that ki exists, neither of the two explanations require an "additional" entity, so Occam's razor would be neutral.

    "Physician hoofbeats" instead is based on the statistically most likely hipothesis, so it doesn't really apply.

  10. #10
    BKR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry, Idaho
    Posts
    16,591
    Style
    Kodokan Judo/BJJ
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Phrost View Post
    So you're saying that a single line in the entire article, referring to a translation from Latin, which you don't agree with, undermines the entire piece?

    Hyperbolic much?

    It's one thing to fact check a translation, it's another to go all 8-Mile, mom's spaghetti as if I was trying to "Lose Myself" in some sort of intellectual rap battle.
    Take care, or he will fire you...
    Falling for Judo since 1980

    "You are wrong. Why? Because you move like a pregnant yak and talk like a spazzing 'I train UFC' noob." -DCS

    "The best part of getting you worked up is your backpack full of irony and lies." -It Is Fake

    "Banning BKR is like kicking a Quokka. It's foolishness of the first order." - Raycetpfl

Page 1 of 9 12345 ... Last

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in