Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] The Daily Recognizer (Wednesday night)

["Orc In A Spacesuit" <orcinaspacesuit@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: "Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> On 5/2/03 at 11:29 AM Orc In A Spacesuit wrote:
>
> > > From: "Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > I rule TRUE on CFI 1481.
> > >
> > > Analysis:
> > >
> > > The current situation is messed up beyond reasonable understanding.
> >
> > No, it is not.  Perhaps you should REFUSE if you are unable to fully
> > analyze
> > the situation.
> >
> > > Volumes of email containing accusations, vitriol, denial, mutually
> > > contradicting logic and self-interest have contributed to that.
> >
> > You seem to combining several independent situations.  All that is
> > relevant
> > is the current state of the rules, and actions attempted with those rules
> > in
> > the past few nedays.  Proposals in the past, actions in the past, and
> > discussion of other topics are irrelevant.
> >
> > > Given this, it is unreasonable to expect any single rationale, especially
> > > one that gives its proponent a win, to be taken more seriously than any
> > > other.
> >
> > I took all the rationales very seriously.  And until you pointed out the
> > problem with Wonko's win, I thought he had a win in the bag, and was ready
> > to congratulate him.
> >
> > > A critical-path analysis of the appropriate logic would be useful.
> >
> > Forgive me if I misunderstand, but I was under the impression that
> > critical-path analysis was a process for planning projects or tasks.
> >
> > What I think would be useful would be an analysis of all the paths of
> > logic,
> > of all the reasons for things involoved; this may be what you mean by
> > critical-path analysis in this context.  I did that in my original "Who
> > Wins?" email, and I have proved all responses to it to either be A. Wrong
> > or
> > B. Irrelevant given the other things involved.
> >
> > > Barring that, any claim of victory by any individual is equally valid;
> > > therefore, any claim of victory by any individual should be considered
> > > equally invalid.
> >
> > Besides the fact that critical-path analysis is not the only way to
> > determine validity, and statements earlier in this post make the previous
> > sentence irrelevant:
> >
> > Either validity and invalidity are absolutes, and everything is one or the
> > other, and not in between; or validity is a scale, and things can be
> > placed
> > anywhere on that scale.
> >
> > If they are absolutes, then saying something is is both valid and invalid
> > is
> > nonsensical; therefore, in the context you are using, validity is a scale.
> >
> > If validity is a scale, and everything can have any place on this scale,
> > and
> > the place on this scale of a thing is unknown, then it is possible that
> > that
> > thing may be fully valid.
> >
> > Therefore, the logic proving I won may be fully valid.
> >
> > I have proved that the logic saying that others have won is invalid.  No
> > one
> > has proved that the logic saying I won is invalid.  Therefore, the logic
> > proving that I have won may possibly still be fully valid.
> >
> > Another tangent:  If things are unknown, that does not make them equal.
> > Pluto is not equal to Uranus; yet both were unknown at some point.  If all
> > you knew that there are 'two planets out there somewhere', these two
> > planets
> > do share the same possibility for what they are, but that does not mean
> > they
> > share the same values (mass, size, rotation, etc in the planets example)
> > within those possibilities.
>
> First of all, some initial points regarding truth and proof...
>
> Just because you say it, that doesn't mean it's true or proven. (This 
> should be obvious.)

And it is obvious.

> Just because I don't respond to your statement, that doesn't mean it's true 
> or proven. (It could mean I didn't see it, or didn't consider it important 
> enough to address, or was otherwise occupied.)

I've seen many responses, and they're just repeating themselves, for the 
most part at least.

> Just because you had the last word in an email exchange regarding your 
> statement, that doesn't mean it's true or proven. (It just means you're 
> more sensitive to caffeine than I am.)

I got tired of saying "pending future proof otherwise".  I waited, got no 
proof otherwise.  Despite many emails.  And yes, it could mean that it was 
missed or ignored or whatever, but we've got to measure these things 
somehow.  As for caffine, it's irrelevant, as the stuff rarely touches my 
system.  But that's getting off topic.

> This is not so formally organized a forum for public debate on topics that 
> we can say with assurance that points and subpoints can be considered 
> proved or disproved as a result of coverage.
<snip>

No, but we have to come as close as we can to proving things one way or the 
other, or we're either going to be in permanant gridlock or have a justice 
system that's a little better than random.

> Secondly, critical-path analysis isn't just used in project planning.  It 
> has to do with the logical path needed for the most efficient (or sometimes 
> only) way to get from point A to point B.  In this particular case, I was 
> using it to refer to getting from the current state of the rules to the 
> question of whether anyone actually won.

Okay, it's a way to logically prove something.  But it's not the only way.  
I think I made my point above about whether or not we have this particular 
way being irrelevent, as long as we have some way of proving.  Which I have 
given.

> We have not done this.  What we have done is along the lines of:
>
> Wonko: I think the rules say such-and-such, so I take such-and-such an 
> action and win.
>
> Glotmorf: Actually, the rules say such-and-such, and that situation doesn't 
> apply to you, so I take such-and-such an action and *I* win.
>
> Orc in a Spacesuit: Actually, the rules say such-and-such, and that 
> situation doesn't apply to you either, so I take such-and-such an action 
> and *I* win.
>
> Wonko: Actually, the rules say such-and-such, and that situation doesn't 
> apply to you, so you *don't* win.

To complete this summary:
Orc: Wonko, your statement is fallacious.

Wonko:  (What he said last time again)

Orc: Still fallacious...

(repeat last two steps)

> In other words, each of us has interpreted the state of the rules and the 
> game to reflect our personal interests: "This is the state of the rules 
> such that it affords me a win."

I'd like to think that we were all a little more objective than that.  What 
I think it is, is each person analyzed the rules, came to an interpertaion, 
and then, from the interpertation, found a way to win.  And the reason that 
people hold onto an interpertation is because they honestly believe it to be 
correct, not because of the win involved with that interpertation.

> I never said I was unable to fully analyze the situation.

Then why do you say "The current situation is messed up beyond reasonable 
understanding"?  I suppose pehaps because you were trying to take in too 
much, analyze several unrelated things together.

We must analyze the situation as best we can, whether or not the hinderences 
in analysis truly exist, and if they do exist, we must overcome them as best 
we can.  We can't just say "oh, we can't analyze this completly perfectly, 
I'll just judge without actually analyzing the facts".  Otherwise, this game 
of logic loses its logic parts.

Orc in a Spacesuit

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss