Terrapin Station

"Most people are not killed by strangers; they're killed by people they know" does not amount to anyone saying "Killed by other 'regular people.'" Tha...

My wife is Indian (and a Hindu) and gets annoyed at all of the fuss over swastika (from all angles--that it was co-opted, that people are largely igno...

Then you answer "Otherwise why bring up the notion of completely dismissing the opinions of others at all times? "

It's not ignoring what you posted. People aren't not thinking of things like rival gang members when they note that most people aren't killed by stran...

Some people--they tend to be unusually paranoid people--have a notion that a significant percentage of murders occur as random encounters in public. T...

You did, by responding to a critical comment about endorsing argumentum ad populums as if it implied completely dismissing the opinions of others at a...

"Either I'm going to endorse argumentum ad populums rather than consider them a fallacy, or I'm going to completely dismiss the opinions of others at ...

Are we making progress?

Aside from the conflation of the supernatural and god(-like entities), that's basically an endorsement of argumentum ad populums.

"The abrupt cancellation came after Colin Kaepernick, the former National Football League quarterback and social justice activist, privately criticize...

Also, Lott isn't a statistician. Not that I think that that's at all the only relevant expertise.

For one, most people are not murdered by strangers, or in situations where they might be carrying concealed weapons.

Influenced by social facts, in a wide variety of ways, sure. Hence why a couple posts ago I wrote "Of course, the reasons are usually not going to be ...

Words, symbols mean or do not mean something solely based on how individuals think about them. They mean or don't mean something to each individual. I...

I'd want to examine and critically analyze the data for this because the claim seems dubious.

:brow: :chin: :rofl:

Yes it's an empirical claim. Empirical claims are not provable. They're only falsifiable to the extent that someone isn't willing to make whatever mov...

It's not a matter of what people "want" something to mean, but what it does in fact mean to them. And just because you (or whoever else) think(s) abou...

What makes x a symbol representing y is that S thinks about x as a symbol representing y. Any S could think about any x as a symbol representing y for...

I just want to address this first. On my view, a mistaken truth-value judgment is either (i) a different person having a different judgment about the ...

How would you say that a pencil on someone's desk in Japan interacts with a glass in my cupboard in New York? How would you say that an arbitrary neut...

All I care about is that you think about and address what I'm asking you to think about and address. I want you to be able to realize something about ...

I quoted one of them. This is a quote from an earlier post of yours that you believe is describing how it works: "That proposition describes/represent...

See above. I quoted you and explained that you're not addressing what I'm asking you.

Here's an example quoting you: "That proposition describes/represents a particular cat being on a particular mat by using words with those particular ...

No, you said things like "S proposes a description and then the description corresponds with a fact" (paraphrasing, obviously). That doesn't address h...

Right. And that's the problem. You can't address it if you're not even clear on what I'm asking you to address. I've explained this a number of times....

Well, AJJ asked this: "If a proposition is true when it matches a fact - and the fact is objective - then why in your view would that truth not be obj...

No. Not my argument. What the dilemma is. If you don't understand what the dilemma is, then no wonder you're not addressing it.

In other words, no, you can't paraphrase the dilemma in a way that I'd agree that it's what I'm saying. Yet, you understand it. Suuuure.

You're saying that literally NOTHING corresponds with something. You understand that, right? Let's try this to check if you understand the issue I'm g...

The words that indicate that he understands that correspondence can't occur outside of making a judgment about it. ;-) He's not understanding that cor...

If the proposition/description amounts to nothing outside of thinking about it, then how does it mind-independently correspond with anything? Mind-ind...

What does a description amount to outside of thinking about the description?

This is the issue. If a proposition conforms to independent reality how? Is it structurally similar?

There are people who don't care if you steal from them. That's a good example of the moral variance we already see. Yet nothing is collapsing.

See, even saying that it can't be talked about rationally online is met with such an emotional response. LOL It's a conversational term, not a mathema...

Not a conversation I'd ever do online, because it's impossible to discuss it rationally.

People are going to agree to some degree if only because there are only so many stances we can imagine while there are seven and a half billion people...

Although there often is confusion, misunderstanding, etc. We see it here all the time.

So meanings, concepts, mental imagery can somehow exist or amount to something outside of a person's mind on your view? (Otherwise, how are such thing...

(I'm writing an additional reply rather than editing the above posts just in case you've already read the above and wouldn't read them again) A couple...

We have a proposition (we can just leave that unanalyzed for a moment--what it is for there to be a proposition). We have a fact. Now, we need matchin...

HOW DOES IT MATCH THE FACT? I'm shouting because you don't seem to be able to hear me asking you that.

So you think that everything interacts with everything else. Does a pencil on someone's desk in Japan necessarily interact with a glass in my cupboard...

I don't agree with you on any of those things morally. So we don't agree on moral principles. People have always disagreed on moral principles. So aga...

On my view, propositions are true or false to someone. It makes no sense to talk of them being true or false where that's independent of anyone. So th...

How is the proposition true? Well, by corresponding to the fact (assuming we're going with correspondence, of course, and not coherence, etc.) But how...

I don't agree with any one of those statements. We've talked about most of them in other threads. Probably no need to rehash it here, because we're ju...

A simple example of how inner experience can be variable while we don't have any problem with language despite that fact is with the old "inverted spe...