LIVE: St Kilda v Western Bulldogs - 7:30PM Thu
Squiggle tips Saints at 51% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
Too true. You might accept losing to Howard/Costello .... but Morrison/Dutton?? Not real flash.
Ahh very good
Why do you think Trump was desperate to get his people into the Supreme Court?
I can close it if others want to.
Exactly my point. I can truly say with my friends/associates none are on the so called extreme end in fact the line between opposite side of politics is often blurred as we can criticise some politicians and policies equally. I don't get the extreme end of politics at all.people loosing their cool and getting nasty.
How can you post this given that you are unable to tell me what 'left means'?
But to be fair, to answer your question would take a thesis.
What difference does it make if i post off topic briefly? You dont read what i post anyway, so youre just powertripping.
Hypocritical? If its about Trump, why the hell do you spend so much time talking about me?
You go off topic all the time. Lazy
The reason some additional topic is required to frame and triangulate (verifiable truth), a necessary paradign shift when communicating with Dogmatic Sheeple, whose belief held unquestioningly and with undefended certainty.
In the pejorative sense, dogma refers to enforced decisions, such as those of aggressive political interests or authorities. More generally, it is applied to some strong belief which its adherents are not willing to discuss rationally.
Sheeple (of "sheep" and "people") highlights the passive herd behavior of people easily controlled by a governing power or market fads which likens them to sheep, a herd animal that is "easily" led about. The term is used to describe those who voluntarily acquiesce to a suggestion without any significant critical analysis or research. Merriam-Webster defines the term as "people who are docile, compliant, or easily influenced: people likened to sheep".
Clearly born out of concern.
I do trust through provision of quality information, strong & sound premises, and framing of alternative debate. I saw this thread and determined by the rot being dribbled that Magpie Supporters deserve to be exposed to significantly superior debate, over the epistemic bubble of negative consequentialism being propergated in this "About Trump" echo chamber.
The information I present is far more attractive and ethical approach because it provides clear and practical guidance – at least in situations where outcomes are easy to predict (Thats your cue to visit the UN, see Agenda 2030, Great Reset on their own website) to maximise benefit for the largest number of people, we must set aside our personal biases and self-interest to benefit others. The ends justifies the means. Side by Side.
What is an Epistemic Bubble & Eco Chamber????
An epistemic bubble is an informational network in which important sources have been excluded by omission, perhaps unintentionally. It is an impaired epistemic framework which lacks strong connectivity. Members within epistemic bubbles are unaware of significant information and reasoning.
On the other hand, an echo chamber is an epistemic construct in which voices are actively excluded and discredited. It does not suffer from a lack in connectivity; rather it depends on a manipulation of trust by methodically discrediting all outside sources.
According to research conducted by the University of Pennsylvania, members of echo chambers become dependent on the sources within the chamber and highly resistant to any external sources.
An important distinction exists in the strength of the respective epistemic structures. Epistemic bubbles are not particularly robust. Relevant information has merely been left out, not discredited. One can ‘pop’ an epistemic bubble by exposing a member to the information and sources that they have been missing.
Echo chambers, however, are incredibly strong. By creating pre-emptive distrust between members and non-members, insiders will be insulated from the validity of counter-evidence and will continue to reinforce the chamber in the form of a closed loop.
Outside voices are heard, but dismissed.
As such, the two concepts are fundamentally distinct and cannot be utilized interchangeably. However, one must note that this distinction is conceptual in nature, and an epistemic community can exercise multiple methods of exclusion to varying extents.
Baron Munchausen pulls himself out of a mire by his own hair.
In epistemology, the Münchhausen trilemma is a thought experiment used to demonstrate the impossibility of proving any truth, even in the fields of logic and mathematics. If it is asked how any given proposition is known to be true, proof may be provided. Yet that same question can be asked of the proof, and any subsequent proof. The Münchhausen trilemma is that there are only three options when providing further proof in response to further questioning:
The trilemma, then, is the decision among the three equally unsatisfying options.
- The circular argument, in which the proof of some proposition is supported only by that proposition
- The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum
- The dogmatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts which are merely asserted rather than defended
The name Münchhausen-Trilemma was coined by the German philosopher Hans Albert in 1968 in reference to a trilemma of "dogmatism versus infinite regress versus psychologism" used by Karl Popper. It is a reference to the problem of "bootstrapping", based on the story of Baron Munchausen (in German, "Münchhausen") pulling himself and the horse on which he was sitting out of a mire by his own hair.
Like Munchausen, who cannot make progress because he has no solid ground to stand on, any purported justification of all knowledge must fail, because it must start from a position of no knowledge, and therefore cannot make progress. It must either start with some knowledge, as with dogmatism, not start at all, as with infinite regress, or be a circular argument, justified only by itself and have no solid foundation, much like Munchausen is only pulling on himself rather than some external handhold.
Infinite Regress (Closed Loop)
In the mode deriving from infinite regress, we say that what is brought forward as a source of conviction for the matter proposed itself needs another such source, which itself needs another, and so ad infinitum, so that we have no point from which to begin to establish anything, and suspension of judgement follows.
We have the mode from hypothesis when the Dogmatists, being thrown back ad infinitum, begin from something which they do not establish but claim to assume simply and without proof in virtue of a concession.
Assuming that knowledge is justified true belief, then:
- Suppose that P is some piece of knowledge. Then P is a justified true belief.
- The only thing that can justify P is another statement – let's call it P1; so P1 justifies P.
- But if P1 is to be a satisfactory justification for P, then we must know that P1.
- But for P1 to be known, it must also be a justified true belief.
- That justification will be another statement - let's call it P2; so P2 justifies P1.
- But if P2 is to be a satisfactory justification for P1, then we must know that P2 is true
- But for P2 to count as knowledge, it must itself be a justified true belief.
- That justification will in turn be another statement - let's call it P3; so P3 justifies P2.
- and so on, ad infinitum.
Socrates established the fact that one cannot depend upon those in "authority" to have sound knowledge and insight. He demonstrated that persons may have power and high position and yet be deeply confused and irrational. Socrates maintained that for an individual to have a good life or to have one that is worth living, he must be a critical questioner and possess an interrogative soul. He established the importance of asking deep questions that probe profoundly into thinking before we accept ideas as worthy of belief.
Socrates established the importance of "seeking evidence, closely examining reasoning and assumptions, analyzing basic concepts, and tracing out implications not only of what is said but of what is done as well". His method of questioning is now known as "Socratic questioning" and is the best known critical thinking teaching strategy.
In his mode of questioning, Socrates highlighted the need for thinking for clarity and logical consistency. He asked people questions to reveal their irrational thinking or lack of reliable knowledge. Socrates demonstrated that having authority does not ensure accurate knowledge. He established the method of questioning beliefs, closely inspecting assumptions and relying on evidence and sound rationale. Plato recorded Socrates' teachings and carried on the tradition of critical thinking. Aristotle and subsequent Greek skeptics refined Socrates' teachings, using systematic thinking and asking questions to ascertain the true nature of reality beyond the way things appear from a glance.
The U.S. National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking defines critical thinking as the "intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.
Give it a crack!
