General > General Technical Chat

BREXIT - what it means for small manufacturers

<< < (51/65) > >>

Cerebus:

--- Quote from: coppice on January 03, 2021, 04:33:32 pm ---
--- Quote from: Cerebus on January 03, 2021, 04:14:18 pm ---You're confusing opinion, for which one would need an independent arbiter if one was insistent on assigning a truth value to an opinion, with fact. Facts are verifiable, opinions are not. Whether someone has two X chromosomes and is therefore biologically female is a fact and is relatively easily proven one way or another, whether someone belongs to the gender set assigned the label "woman" is a social construct and therefore a matter of opinion or convention.

--- End quote ---
Some facts are easy to verify, like 2+2=4. This doesn't stop people now trying to argue that 2+2 can equal 5. Some facts are hard to verify. Few would argue that a ginger tom in someone's lounge, or a lion, is a cat. Around the periphery of what constitutes a cat the experts do argue. For example. do they have to be able to interbreed to all be cats? Maths, physics and chemistry largely have easy to verify truth claims. Most things have a socially constructed element to them, like "cat", and some concepts are 100% socially constructed. Even in physics we have socially constructed concepts, like colour, that cause endless disagreements. As soon as physics moves from a hard mathematical description to a looser textual one truth starts to get a little dodgy. People find truth claims quite difficult to agree on for most things.

--- End quote ---

That's just sophistry, and I think you know it.

coppice:

--- Quote from: Cerebus on January 03, 2021, 04:43:23 pm ---
--- Quote from: coppice on January 03, 2021, 04:33:32 pm ---
--- Quote from: Cerebus on January 03, 2021, 04:14:18 pm ---You're confusing opinion, for which one would need an independent arbiter if one was insistent on assigning a truth value to an opinion, with fact. Facts are verifiable, opinions are not. Whether someone has two X chromosomes and is therefore biologically female is a fact and is relatively easily proven one way or another, whether someone belongs to the gender set assigned the label "woman" is a social construct and therefore a matter of opinion or convention.

--- End quote ---
Some facts are easy to verify, like 2+2=4. This doesn't stop people now trying to argue that 2+2 can equal 5. Some facts are hard to verify. Few would argue that a ginger tom in someone's lounge, or a lion, is a cat. Around the periphery of what constitutes a cat the experts do argue. For example. do they have to be able to interbreed to all be cats? Maths, physics and chemistry largely have easy to verify truth claims. Most things have a socially constructed element to them, like "cat", and some concepts are 100% socially constructed. Even in physics we have socially constructed concepts, like colour, that cause endless disagreements. As soon as physics moves from a hard mathematical description to a looser textual one truth starts to get a little dodgy. People find truth claims quite difficult to agree on for most things.

--- End quote ---
That's just sophistry, and I think you know it.

--- End quote ---
That requires some explanation.

SilverSolder:

--- Quote from: coppice on January 03, 2021, 04:33:32 pm ---
--- Quote from: Cerebus on January 03, 2021, 04:14:18 pm ---You're confusing opinion, for which one would need an independent arbiter if one was insistent on assigning a truth value to an opinion, with fact. Facts are verifiable, opinions are not. Whether someone has two X chromosomes and is therefore biologically female is a fact and is relatively easily proven one way or another, whether someone belongs to the gender set assigned the label "woman" is a social construct and therefore a matter of opinion or convention.

--- End quote ---
Some facts are easy to verify, like 2+2=4. This doesn't stop people now trying to argue that 2+2 can equal 5. Some facts are hard to verify. Few would argue that a ginger tom in someone's lounge, or a lion, is a cat. Around the periphery of what constitutes a cat the experts do argue. For example. do they have to be able to interbreed to all be cats? Maths, physics and chemistry largely have easy to verify truth claims. Most things have a socially constructed element to them, like "cat", and some concepts are 100% socially constructed. Even in physics we have socially constructed concepts, like colour, that cause endless disagreements. As soon as physics moves from a hard mathematical description to a looser textual one truth starts to get a little dodgy. People find truth claims quite difficult to agree on for most things.

--- End quote ---

If we agree the assumptions, then we can also agree the logical truths.  Both steps are needed.

DrG:

--- Quote from: coppice on January 03, 2021, 03:41:33 pm ---
--- Quote from: SilverSolder on January 03, 2021, 03:36:52 pm ---
--- Quote from: coppice on January 03, 2021, 02:58:19 pm ---
--- Quote from: SilverSolder on January 02, 2021, 08:47:08 pm ---The whole concept of democracy has some serious flaws, which are being exploited mercilessly these days.  (It is still probably just about the least bad of the possible political systems, but we probably need for there to be consequences for intentionally attempting to break the system for political advantage.  Also, I don't think politicians lying should fall in the category of "free speech").

--- End quote ---
The idea that you might be able to ban lies in public life is predicated, consciously or unconsciously, on there being some kind of benevolent proactive God who can look down and tell humanity what is right. The need for a truly independent arbiter, which doesn't exist in the real world, is the key reason so many ideas for running a society fail. Systems that work reasonably well are the ones that have some amount of self correction inherent in them. They can still go off the rails, but less often.

Some lies are so obvious and blatant, they should be incontrovertible. However, in tribal societies people can't even agree what "woman" means any more.

--- End quote ---

To start somewhere, we could say that a statement that is provably untrue is a "lie".  For example, claiming that there was cheating during an election without evidence to back it up.

--- End quote ---
That's an odd one to choose. There is lots of evidence, and sworn testimony. Maybe its all fake, but not investigating its veracity in a democracy is bizarre. Most of the court cases were thrown out due to a lack of standing, not because the evidence was successfully refuted.

--- End quote ---

Most of the court cases were thrown out due to a lack of standing, not because the evidence was successfully refuted.

That is simply a false statement and is easily proven to be false. Simply count the number of court cases and determine whether the number of court cases dismissed because of a lack of standing exceeds the total number of cases / 2. I do not believe that you have done that. I believe that it is more likely that you are simply expressing a biased perception because (in large part) of lies being repeated so often. Therein lies the bigger problem.

Maybe its all fake, but not investigating its veracity in a democracy is bizarre.

There is much that is simply wrong with that statement. First, it assumes that no investigations have taken place, which is, again, demonstrably false, Second, it suggests that the biased view that certain allegations, no matter how lacking of supportive evidence, should be investigated at whatever cost and for however long, if doing so is viewed as politically advantageous. Third is describing the practice of requiring evidence to support allegations as being bizarre. What is bizarre is that so many people, who know better, are acting like they really don't know better and have no problem wading into the unfounded conspiracy pool because they perceive some kind of personal gain in doing so.

The latter description distinguishes the "weasel" from the "loon". To be clear, I am not calling you either, I am referring to the talking heads and publicity hounds and wannabe "influencers", and, of course, the elected officials which condone and support such behaviors if not directly engaging in such behaviors, which some also do.

coppice:

--- Quote from: DrG on January 03, 2021, 04:54:01 pm ---Most of the court cases were thrown out due to a lack of standing, not because the evidence was successfully refuted.

That is simply a false statement and is easily proven to be false. Simply count the number of court cases and determine whether the number of court cases dismissed because of a lack of standing exceeds the total number of cases / 2. I do not believe that you have done that. I believe that it is more likely that you are simply expressing a biased perception because (in large part) of lies being repeated so often. Therein lies the bigger problem.

Maybe its all fake, but not investigating its veracity in a democracy is bizarre.

There is much that is simply wrong with that statement. First, it assumes that no investigations have taken place, which is, again, demonstrably false, Second, it suggests that the biased view that certain allegations, no matter how lacking of supportive evidence, should be investigated at whatever cost and for however long, if doing so is viewed as politically advantageous. Third is describing the practice of requiring evidence to support allegations as being bizarre. What is bizarre is that so many people, who know better, are acting like they really don't know better and have no problem wading into the unfounded conspiracy pool because they perceive some kind of personal gain in doing so.

The latter description distinguishes the "weasel" from the "loon". To be clear, I am not calling you either, I am referring to the talking heads and publicity hounds and wannabe "influencers", and, of course, the elected officials which condone and support such behaviors if not directly engaging in such behaviors, which some also do.

--- End quote ---
As an observer from another country, I find a deep lack of skepticism in America about its elections. There are only two parties of any significant weight, and both are regularly seen to be using every possible means to skew results in their favour, like Gerrymandering. Its considered the preferred approach, over having policies the public can get behind, and ensuring they are carried out. Yet, when it comes to the actual election day there is a general assumption they won't play games. I would assume they are both getting up to every possible trick, and demand the most detailed monitoring by numerous representatives from all stakeholders. The US has used voting machines considered proprietary and not subject to independent audit. That's bizarre.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod