Yes Henry. Well I didn’t mean to argue about the nature of good arguments. Consensus seems valid to me for what I think are good reasons. But I don’t want to go there. It’s cool you don’t have an opinion on it. And I don’t see this conversation as having been waste at all. But the question remains, why do AF people hold on to bad arguments (that their bad opinions rely on)?
Yes, exactly. Also everyone is shaped a bit differently. Everyone’s palette will be slightly different, for example. This will lead people to be inclined or partial towards certain foods over others. Towards certain arguments over others. Etc
3 Likes
Maybe this. Why do AF people continually miscalculate the same thing over and over again despite logically consistent arguments operating from mutually agreed upon premises showing their conclusions to be either logically inconsistent and/or based on a premise to be factually incorrect?
I didn’t want to be that explicit but you made me do it. My current theory is that some people are just very bad at deductive reasoning and don’t know it. It’s not an entirely satisfying explanation because it seems that an AF person would be open to admitting that they aren’t very good at the deductive reasoning. But maybe it requires solid deductive reasoning skills to know one is bad at deductive reasoning. I often compared it to tone deaf and lacking rhythm in a society that loves to sing and dance but where almost everyone is more-or-less tone deaf and lacking rhythm. They won’t ever hear that their off key and off beat. As long as they can find others who will listen to them and dance to them then they’ll never know.
There’s your miscalculation
Can you ensure that all premises and assumptions have been mutually agreed to at the initiation of the discussion (or of the logical deductive process)?
For example, for R+V bringing up George Soros is a revelant piece of information. For you, it’s not.
Incidentally, they and I had a similar discussion about global warming while I was there and they also brought up the New World Order etc. then. It was quite interesting!
Assume that you could achieve this.
Now let’s say they make logical errors. There are bad logicians. Maybe they are stupid. Dull. Dim witted. Unintelligent.
So what?
Ha! That’s true, you could have a stupid free person.
Also IQ tests show that intelligence is not perfectly balanced in every department. Some may be intelligent in one thing and close to retarded in another thing.
I am living proof. 
copy and cut…nevermind. carry on
For what it’s worth Jon, I think it is a very fascinating discussion.
And I wish you guys would have these discussions outside of business hours EST because it is very distracting to my work productivity. (Too enticing to ignore, that is 
)
Cool. maybe keep the information about bowls to yourself next time. I do knows bowls are uneven and bias and unevenness are related.
I turned down a job offer yesterday because it meant I wouldn’t be able to devote as much time to, um… armchair-racing?
But in sincerity, my time is currently well-spent reading the AFT and researching all manner of things 
1 Like
That’s where the usage of bias comes from. From the properties of a bowl. So yeah.
It’s just that aspect that makes the bowl lean to one side as it travels versus the other. That’s it. And then it got applied in the figurative sense. And the rest is history.
I think the issue was that your metaphorical bent was a bit opaque without further explanation
1 Like
I know. That was very clear from the very first reply. From there I would have liked other contributions or none at all.
It was crystal clear from the beginning. You may have missed it. It was the very first reply.
Well you got “other contributions” at the end. Are you satisfied now?
That is, did the discussion end on a satisfactory note thanks to the other contributions?
Sounds fascinating.
Yes. I thought was good. But if there’s anybody out there who doesn’t want to challenge the what I thought was a near universal acknowledgement that some arguments are objectively better than others. The boogie man did it is not a good argument. A demonstration of cause and effect is a good argument.
I agree. And I think this is also why I find what you brought up very interesting.
It’s entirely possible for an actually free person to be very wrong. To be very illogical. Even, theoretically, to be very unintelligent. (There is no IQ pre-requisite for an actual freedom)