NationStates Jolt Archive

...do you assume it is false?

Or more specifically, if someone makes a proposition, and he fails to demonstrate it to be correct (and you don't have any significant reason or experience to believe it either, other than 'his word'), do you then assume that it is false (assuming you haven't had it demonstrated to you anywhere else at that time)?

Because I feel that a good portion of people on NSG do.

*poll coming*

Yes.

Of course not.

There are degrees of certainty and degrees of doubt. A belief has to reach a sort of critical mass before I would employ it in making an assertion (defined as a wager). Absent any evidence, I might be pushed toward belief or doubt depending on the reliability of the source, but never toward assertion. Does that make sense? :p

No. I don't nessissarily presume it to be false.

Imagine, for example, that five thousand years ago some one had claimed that light was the fastest thing in the universe. I doubt they could have demonstrated it to be true. That doesn't mean it would have been false.

I tend to take things that can't be proven either way and just file them under the "more information/investigation required" catagory.

Does that make sense? :p

Indeed. Although, some people on NSG believe it is irrational to believe... anything. Which I find to be an odd remark.


Imagine, for example, that five thousand years ago some one had claimed that light was the fastest thing in the universe. I doubt they could have demonstrated it to be true. That doesn't mean it would have been false.


Indeed, the idea that something that fails to have its truth demonstrated is false, is funnily enough, demonstrably false. However, I think the issue has more to do with 'rules', useful methods of verification that lead to and perhaps require necessary assumptions, but almost for pragmatic purposes, but somehow get mixed with actual opinions on a subject matter, if you catch my drift.

It also depends on the poster. I wouldn't belived TAI, for example, if he said water was wet. For obvious reasons.

It also depends on the poster. I wouldn't belived TAI, for example, if he said water was wet. For obvious reasons.

Because he's teh ebil Conservativez, right?:rolleyes:

It also depends on the poster. I wouldn't belived TAI, for example, if he said water was wet. For obvious reasons.

I'm assuming this is on the particular topics that there is tension on (things like Pinochet), or do you assume it to be false, whatever the topic he is talking about?

no

if it SEEMS right i might hold it as a possibility. if it SEEMS wrong i will discount it. if i have no feeling one way or the other ill disregard it.

I base my conclusion on a preponderance of evidence versus whatever evidence supports alternative conclusions. I then decide that the statement MAY be true, or it MAY be false, but that it is FUNCTIONALLY one or the other to me.

I do not, however, make a decision and then categorically deny that any other possibility exists, and judge others based solely on whether or not their interpretation of the evidence agrees with mine. Especially in cases where the amount of evidence is slim.

If I have no prior knowledge about the subject, then I assume it to be true.

If I have any prior knowledge whatsoever, I weigh it against that knowledge and judge accordingly.

It depends. Generally, no, unless I have other independent knowledge.

However, since this is what politicians will always do, I try to avoid them as much as possible. Not too effective, however.

If a statement cannot be demonstrated to be true...

...do you assume it is false?

Of course, the statement 'any statement which cannot be demonstrated to be true should be assumed to be false' should be assumed to be false if one is to apply it to itself.

It also depends on the poster.

This.


Or if its in real life, the person.

...do you assume it is false?

Or more specifically, if someone makes a proposition, and he fails to demonstrate it to be correct (and you don't have any significant reason or experience to believe it either, other than 'his word'), do you then assume that it is false (assuming you haven't had it demonstrated to you anywhere else at that time)?

Of course not. He'd have to fail to demonstrate that it was likely to be true for me to assume it was false.

...do you assume it is false?

Or more specifically, if someone makes a proposition, and he fails to demonstrate it to be correct (and you don't have any significant reason or experience to believe it either, other than 'his word'), do you then assume that it is false (assuming you haven't had it demonstrated to you anywhere else at that time)?

Because I feel that a good portion of people on NSG do.

*poll coming*Only if the proposition makes sense. Why should I suppose the 'proposition' is meaningful in the first place? For example, the classic: "The king of France is bald." Yet there is no king of France. I am hardly locked into saying that either it is true (It can't be) and it's false (which seems to imply that there is a king of France). Rather: that proposition cannot be used to denote a particular person's hair style. It has other uses, however, like I just demonstrated-- as an example of a proposition which is neither true nor false, or perhaps there is a king of France in a book or movie or something who is bald. You might also think of the liar paradox, which has no true/false resolution (unnatural and arbitrary limits on possible resolutions create paradoxes, apparently).

If a statement cannot be demonstrated to be true it's ambiguously gay and so is the person who made it.

This.


Or if its in real life, the person.
yes.

except that you have to keep in mind that even a psycholiar tells the truth now and then. even a complete fool can be right on occasion.

so if the source is unreliable but you want to use the "fact" for some reason, you dont discount it, you verify it yourself.

Nah, I just disregard it.

According to Goedel's first Incompleteness Theorem, there are true statements that cannot be proven. So, no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorem#Meaning_of_the_first_incompleteness_theorem

Yes, although, as a good friend once told me after losing an argument, "Facts are Just Opinions"

Nothing unreal exists.

...do you assume it is false?

Or more specifically, if someone makes a proposition, and he fails to demonstrate it to be correct (and you don't have any significant reason or experience to believe it either, other than 'his word'), do you then assume that it is false (assuming you haven't had it demonstrated to you anywhere else at that time)?

Because I feel that a good portion of people on NSG do.

*poll coming*

Around here, the answer is "yes, if it's a conservative saying it. Otherwise the answer is no."

Nothing unreal exists.

http://www.bagpipes.net/ut/UnrealTournamentLogo.jpg

Of course, the statement 'any statement which cannot be demonstrated to be true should be assumed to be false' should be assumed to be false if one is to apply it to itself.

unless it calls no backsies

Yes

a good portion of people on NSG do.

Source?

It would depend on the statement. Some things can't be considered true or false. Some are impossible to verify. Some are extremely difficult to verify with current technology. Some I don't care about and ignore. Sometimes I just hold it to be false so that I can get a debate going.

Not always, but if it's a ridiculous claim, or you can't even back it up the tiniest amount, then I will presume it to be false.

Source?

Mah poll

Does anyone who says 'yes' want to elaborate a bit further?

Not always, but if it's a ridiculous claim, or you can't even back it up the tiniest amount, then I will presume it to be false.

I have absolutely no objective evidence for the following statement: My dancing is more enjoyable when no one's looking.

Do you presume that is false?

Why?

I have absolutely no objective evidence for the following statement: My dancing is more enjoyable when no one's looking.

Do you presume that is false?

Why?

No I don't, because in you opinion it is, and I can't prove or disprove an opinion.

No I don't, because in you opinion it is, and I can't prove or disprove an opinion.

Okay. So you don't presume opinions to be false.

What about the statement (for which, again, I have no evidence) that I went out drinking on Tuesday night.

Do you presume that to be false?

Why?

I'm assuming this is on the particular topics that there is tension on (things like Pinochet), or do you assume it to be false, whatever the topic he is talking about? Na, let me modify that. Let me say that I would be highly suspicious of certain people if I have had experience with them being intellectually dishonest before. I would demand more evidence from those kinds of people than I might from people who don't equivocate as much.

Mah poll

Your study is not viable; those who answer could be puppets.

Na, let me modify that. Let me say that I would be highly suspicious of certain people if I have had experience with them being intellectually dishonest before. I would demand more evidence from those kinds of people than I might from people who don't equivocate as much.

Fair enough.

Your study is not viable; those who answer could be puppets.

Mah poll is publc, you can check to see if the people are puppets or not.

Does anyone who says 'yes' want to elaborate a bit further?

Not really.

Not really.

Could you elaborate or explain as to why you do not wish to elaborate or explain? :p

Could you elaborate or explain as to why you do not wish to elaborate or explain? :p

Yes, because I do not want to.

Yes, because I do not want to.

Explain.

Lol