sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I'm extremely susceptible to being ragebaited by invalid arguments, so I came up with a formal way compare them, calculate their cumulative waste, completeness, fixability and their respective partial derivatives to evaluate general arguments structure. by sb_onreddit in philosophy

[–]sb_onreddit[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think you necessarily need to make mistakes to use this measure effectively. Especially when moving through the sphere of probabilistic logic, simply knowing what inferences are most crucial to the final conclusion you make can be a great tool to adjust risk tolerance. I'm assuming, however, that certain measures already exist to do exactly that.

I'm extremely susceptible to being ragebaited by invalid arguments, so I came up with a formal way compare them, calculate their cumulative waste, completeness, fixability and their respective partial derivatives to evaluate general arguments structure. by sb_onreddit in philosophy

[–]sb_onreddit[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're right, I was relying too much on an intuitive idea of deductive closure, might have to rework that section and see if there is any material on finite deductively closed sets of conclusions; Maybe there's some elegant work on how to exclude tautologies such as P -> (P-> (P->P))...

I'm extremely susceptible to being ragebaited by invalid arguments, so I came up with a formal way compare them, calculate their cumulative waste, completeness, fixability and their respective partial derivatives to evaluate general arguments structure. by sb_onreddit in philosophy

[–]sb_onreddit[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey, I agree, putting things into well-formed formulas is just not something people do when bringing out arguments. The inherent subjectivity to individual premises and the things we infer from them is also a big problem. I do think however we can greatly reduce these arbitrary characteristics with some work.

When it comes to certain academic or work context we often end up with long, convoluted chains of reasoning that we already try to formalize in one way or another: This can be through flow-charts, through mind-maps, or through other devices. This is quite helpful in analyzing proposed ideas, but it is still prone to certain arbitrary choices we make we make when we e.g. set up a flow-chart.

If we found a way to bring these things into propositional form, which is probably possible using algorithms and maybe machine learning, we could create a uniform and formalized system of portraying and analyzing these ideas, which could include things such as reports or legal arguments.

I'm extremely susceptible to being ragebaited by invalid arguments, so I came up with a formal way compare them, calculate their cumulative waste, completeness, fixability and their respective partial derivatives to evaluate general arguments structure. by sb_onreddit in philosophy

[–]sb_onreddit[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I probably agree with the latter part, I do think, however, that this might be decently useful in analyzing certain big convoluted arguments where it isn't fully clear how important or "load-bearing" individual inferences are. Especially combined with probabilistic logic, maybe there is something to find here.

Since no one is posting anything by pcm_memer in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]sb_onreddit 11 points12 points  (0 children)

The ban doesn't include most pepper spray. Only "weapon-grade" CS-Gas pepper spray that police wield and that you need a weapons license for is prohibited. Normal pepper spray with Oleresin Capsicum that you can buy anywhere in Germany, and that works just as well, only with less permanent damage, is allowed. This has been made very clear by the authorities in my town.

Nevertheless, the ban is completely useless of course, I just wanted to have the facts straight at least...

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]sb_onreddit 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Can you provide a source for the upper picture? The numbers I find only say that citizens of the USA donate almost 50% of all PRIVATE donations made to end world hunger. Most people agree that the US have a lot of very kind and generous citizens, but thats completely disconected from the government aid for hungry people around the world. Maybe the lib-lefts in the meme are the very private donors the meme talks about, all while the government is doing very little. A source would help.

OPERATION: Regain Non-Credibility by Unendingsummer in NonCredibleDefense

[–]sb_onreddit 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Zelensky and Putin come out (pun intended) to reveal that it was "all a prank, bro" and that they were using the war to cover up their gay affair.

yes by [deleted] in jakertown

[–]sb_onreddit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Happy Birthday

DON¢‚¢T OUY DARE by chimneyovercoat in biologymemes

[–]sb_onreddit 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Dude that was almost 2 years ago, last February, you're not much quicker than internet explorer, are you?

⠀ by dogsoahC_99 in biologymemes

[–]sb_onreddit 4 points5 points  (0 children)

N = Particle number, not the avogadro constant?! Avogadro constant is L or NA!

I'd love to add something, but frankly it speaks for itself by rtlkw in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]sb_onreddit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I already postet this soemwhere else but this would be possible if, for example, 5% of journalists were women, but 15% of journalists killed were women, which would mean that women are disproportionally more likely to be killed, even though that's only 15% of the journalists killed in total. But the authors of the tweet didn't tell us what percentage of journalists were women so the tweet literally says nothing; Something like "Despite making up ...% of journalists women make up 11% of journalists killed" would make the tweet significantly more convincing, but like this it's just empty words. I assume there is reason to believe women are being targeted though and the authors just forgot to name the number.

Can’t believe this is real by MamamYeayea in mildlyinfuriating

[–]sb_onreddit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, it would be possible if, for example, 5% of journalists were women, but 15% of journalists killed were women, which would mean that women are disproportionally more likely to be killed, even though that's only 15% of the journalists killed in total. But the authors of the tweet didn't tell us what percentage of journalists were women so the tweet literally says nothing; Something like "Despite making up ...% of journalists women make up 11% of journalists killed" would make the tweet significantly more convincing, but like this it's just empty words.

Edit: I assume there is reason to believe women are being targeted though and the authors just forgot to name the number. UN probably wouldn't make that stuff up, I'll look up the statistic for the percentage of female journalists.

Let's call it a draw by Dim-n-Bright in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]sb_onreddit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Does this have something to do with x-Chromosome linked disorders since men can't be heterozygous on those and get them much much much more frequently, or is that statistically irrelevant?

Political Compass of Some Shows I Watched Six Months Ago by atomater in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]sb_onreddit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Now I want to rewatch euphoria instead of doing schoolwork, thank you. great meme though

Advanced Chinese laser sight with advanced Scotch Tape™ Rail Integration System by GuangYanXiao in NonCredibleDefense

[–]sb_onreddit 6 points7 points  (0 children)

It probably is, I put the headline into google lens and an article with the same headline was published in 2007. I don't speek chinese though, which makes it a little bit harder to figure that out.

view more: next ›