What Do You Think Of Emmanuel's Wager©?

[PRmerger]

Excellent. That should prevent some misunderstandings in the future.

I think you may be confusing me with someone else here, Oreoracle.

I don’t have any problem with multiple definitions of agnosticism.

I only took issue with your declaration that definitions can’t be wrong.

Of course they can.

If I say, “I declare that an atheist is anyone who believes turnips are the reincarnation of Princess Di!” that would be…

a wrong definition.

And I took issue with your definition of fundamentalist–it was too, well, fundamentalist.

That’s the extent of my disagreement with you and definitions.

Oh, and your declaration that the definition of agnosticism had changed. I am not necessarily in disagreement with you there–I just don’t have any examples and asked you for that.

That’s all.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m not sure it’s safe to assume that choosing something implies wanting it. Consider arranged marriages, for example. I would distinguish choosing something from making a claim about it, because the possible motivations for choosing that thing are debatable.

LOL!

Arranged marriages, eh?

And this applies to our discussion on Dispassion Alone being a good thing, how?

 

[stewstew03]

It’s not skirting the issue. I am pointing out how countless others have believed themselves right in restricting certain conventions in language. At the time, it always seems justified–“no one could possibly think about this any other useful way!” I have given you examples of where this thinking has been proven wrong time and again by history.

What’s fascinating is that you can concede each point and yet still fail to see the trend. Every generation believes they have the broadest possible perspective on an issue, be it language or otherwise. They have always been wrong.

So there’s no point in addressing your particular example, because you’ll just contrive another until you get your way. You don’t want to learn from history, and I certainly can’t force you to.

But for me to concede to your point, you would need to demonstrate that the definition of a triangle is “right” in one century and “wrong” in another. You haven’t even come close to providing any evidence of this. Euclid’s definition of a triangle is still valid, despite your best efforts to soil his good name. The only thing you have demonstrated is that you are Johnny-one-note on the properties of triangles! (Please tell me you are not responsible for teaching geometry – and if you are a pedagogue of some sort, hopefully you teach philosophy).

In any event, this may be helpful for future reference:

Triangle:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Not a triangle:
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/...6jeIDG11JYUA0lHPJIZAwB63OHj0W0yPzBP08geFpcdig

 

[Oreoracle]

I think you may be confusing me with someone else here, Oreoracle.

I don’t have any problem with multiple definitions of agnosticism.

I only took issue with your declaration that definitions can’t be wrong.

I know, but we only began talking about definitions when the topic of agnosticism arose. Since we seem to have an understanding regarding what I mean by “agnosticism”, our opinions on linguistics can be hashed out some other time.

LOL!

Arranged marriages, eh?

And this applies to our discussion on Dispassion Alone being a good thing, how?

I was responding to your assertion that a choice is a claim. I could give a more mundane example than marriage if you like: Suppose I eat a meal. What claim is being made by my choice to eat the meal? We can’t assume that I like the meal, as I may just be eating it for its health benefits. We can’t even assume that I want it, as I may be eating it to please the person who prepared it.

So choices aren’t claims. Even if the agent is making an underlying, unstated claim, the choice itself may tell us little about the claim, as there could be many possibilities.

 

[stewstew03]

It’s not skirting the issue. …So there’s no point in addressing your particular example…

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Oreoracle]

But for me to concede to your point, you would need to demonstrate that the definition of a triangle is “right” in one century and “wrong” in another. You haven’t even come close to providing any evidence of this. Euclid’s definition of a triangle is still valid, despite your best efforts to soil his good name. The only thing you have demonstrated is that you are Johnny-one-note on the properties of triangles!

No, I don’t have to prove that certain definitions are right and others are wrong. That’s your claim, not mine! I have been saying this whole time that definitions do not have truth values. It is you who has to reconcile conflicting definitions. My answer to conflicting definitions is simple: it’s just a difference in convention.

 

[stewstew03]

No, I don’t have to prove that certain definitions are right and others are wrong. That’s your claim, not mine! I have been saying this whole time that definitions do not have truth values. It is you who has to reconcile conflicting definitions. My answer to conflicting definitions is simple: it’s just a difference in convention.

Well, this goes back to my original post (when I first entered the fray). You are confusing right/wrong with absolute truth/falsity. Definitions can be right/wrong - but that says very little, if anything, about their truthness.

 

[PRmerger]

I know, but we only began talking about definitions when the topic of agnosticism arose.

Well, if you mean by “we” “Oreoracle and someone else” then, ok.

But if you mean by “we” “PRmerger and Oreoracle” then, no.

You and I started talking about definitions when you bristled at my saying that you had a fundamentalist position if you use Dispassion Alone as your means for discerning truths.

 

[stewstew03]

…
I was responding to your assertion that a choice is a claim. I could give a more mundane example than marriage if you like: Suppose I eat a meal. What claim is being made by my choice to eat the meal? We can’t assume that I like the meal, as I may just be eating it for its health benefits. We can’t even assume that I want it, as I may be eating it to please the person who prepared it.

So choices aren’t claims. Even if the agent is making an underlying, unstated claim, the choice itself may tell us little about the claim, as there could be many possibilities.

Well, if you chose to eat a small child, we could confidently claim that you are a cannibal - or, at the very least, have participated in cannibalism. And if you were forced to eat a small child against your will, we could assume that you valued the child’s life as less than yours (or a loved one’s).

 

[Oreoracle]

Well, this goes back to my original post (when I first entered the fray). You are confusing right/wrong with absolute truth/falsity. Definitions can be right/wrong - but that says very little, if anything, about their truthness.

You have a very idiosyncratic notion of “wrong” then.

Student: “Umm…Professor? I was wondering what I did wrong here. I lost a lot of points on this problem.”

Professor: “Hmm…Yes, your answer was quite wrong.”

Student: “But I thought such-and-such was true.”

Professor: “Of course that’s true. I didn’t say what you wrote was false. It’s just wrong!”

I think it would have been far less confusing if you had just said “inappropriate” rather than “wrong”. So, incidentally, your usage may have been inappropriate.

You and I started talking about definitions when you bristled at my saying that you had a fundamentalist position if you use Dispassion Alone as your means for discerning truths.

You still haven’t given an example of a single instance in which passion is necessary for the acquisition of truth. (A non-religious example, obviously.)

 

[stewstew03]

You have a very idiosyncratic notion of “wrong” then.

Student: “Umm…Professor? I was wondering what I did wrong here. I lost a lot of points on this problem.”

Professor: “Hmm…Yes, your answer was quite wrong.”

Student: “But I thought such-and-such was true.”

Professor: “Of course that’s true. I didn’t say what you wrote was false. It’s just wrong!”

Or, a student in your class:

Student: “Umm…Professor? I was wondering why you didn’t score this problem regarding the definition of a triangle. Isn’t a triangle a union of three segments (sides or edges) from a set of three non-collinear points?”

Professor: “Hmm… maybe.”

Student: “But I thought that was the right answer, and you didn’t score it.”

Professor: “Well, it’s not the right answer, but it’s not the wrong answer either!"

 

[Oreoracle]

Or, a student in your class:

Student: “Umm…Professor? I was wondering why you didn’t score this problem regarding the definition of a triangle. Isn’t a triangle a union of three segments (sides or edges) from a set of three non-collinear points?”

Professor: “Hmm… maybe.”

Student: “But I thought that was the right answer, and you didn’t score it.”

Professor: “Well, it’s not the right answer, but it’s not the wrong answer either!"

Definitions are taken as axiomatic within math courses, but you are not expected to commit to any particular definition outside of that course. In fact, you’re encouraged not to become attached to a definition because it will eventually impede your understanding. (Ask a few statisticians what “probability” means and you’ll hear little agreement outside of its formal mathematical properties. Semantics are generally not very helpful in math.)

I’ve heard at least 3 of my professors in this semester alone say nearly verbatim “We define this to be [insert term here]. And that’s it, because you can’t argue with a definition.” We’re currently learning about “incidence geometries”, which allow lines to be any curve because all the geometries care about is which lines pass through which points. Imposing a more stringent definition of “line” would complicate matters needlessly.

 

[PRmerger]

So choices aren’t claims.

Some are.

When you can choose between ordering another latte at Starbucks, or giving $5 to a homeless man, you are making a claim: I think it is good to help the homeless.

In fact, if you use dispassion alone to make that decision, you probably wouldn’t help this homeless man. It is only when you use** compassion** that you deny yourself a latte and give to someone more needy.

 

[PRmerger]

I’ve heard at least 3 of my professors in this semester alone say nearly verbatim “We define this to be [insert term here]. And that’s it, because you can’t argue with a definition.”

Interesting that 3 professors are consistently arguing the same thing that we Catholics are.

There is a definition. You ought not deviate from this definition. If you want to be consonant with truth.

BTW: did you tell these 3 professors that you have a problem with insisting that a particular definition is the correct one?

 

[PRmerger]

You still haven’t given an example of a single instance in which passion is necessary for the acquisition of truth. (A non-religious example, obviously.)

I have given you 2 now.

One is in the choice of your wife.

The other is in choosing to give to a homeless man.

If you use dispassion alone you’ll never love. Nor will you ever know the joy of giving.

Here’s a few more (religion will not be required to apprehend these realities):
If you use dispassion alone you’ll never interrupt your sleep to comfort a crying child.
If you use dispassion alone you’ll never offer your coat to a man who has none.

If you use dispassion alone, you’ll never step up to volunteer to die for another man, out of love for a perfect stranger.

 

[inocente]

Do you have a reputable website, or journal article…or anything that will support your claim that the definition of a triangle is still a matter up for debate?

It’s not skirting the issue.

I don’t know what point you each want to make regarding definitions as I’ve only read the last couple of pages and got a bit lost, and I’m not a mathematician, but I think you’re both right to an extent:

A triangle is a three sided polygon, and all polygons have straight sides.

In curved spaces a straight line is defined as a geodesic, for example the shortest distance along the surface of a sphere.

Triangles, including geodesic triangles, are still defined as bounded by straight sides in all spaces, it’s the definition of a straight line which varies (and the interior angles only sum to 180º in Euclidean geometry).

 

[Oreoracle]

Interesting that 3 professors are consistently arguing the same thing that we Catholics are.

There is a definition. You ought not deviate from this definition. If you want to be consonant with truth.

That’s subtly different than your initial claim, which is that definitions are true or false. If definitions have truth values, then there is “the” definition of a word, but the rest are mistaken.

Mathematicians merely propose “a” definition to be used for the sake of the discussion. It is fully understood that the proposed definition often doesn’t match conventional dictionary definitions. It is understood that you probably won’t “accept” such a definition in the sense of embracing it. But acceptance isn’t necessary for conventions. You need only use the definitions in that context, not accept them.

Again, there are a few good examples in my classes: “A probability is just a number assigned to a subset of a sample space which satisfies these axioms. And that’s it–you can’t argue with a definition.” “A line is just a member of a set. It needn’t be straight or be given by a formula. And that’s it–you can’t argue with a definition.”

BTW: did you tell these 3 professors that you have a problem with insisting that a particular definition is the correct one?

There seems to be a misunderstanding regarding what a convention is. Acknowledging that something is a convention doesn’t mean that it’s advisable to deviate from it. It just means that its meaning is based on an implicit understanding between the parties that use it. It isn’t necessary that the convention have universal support.

For example, driving on the right lane is a convention. Many European countries use the left lane. Clearly there is no “truth” to using the left lane over the right or vice-versa, they are just conventions. We more or less just picked one arbitrarily to avoid accidents. It would obviously be highly impractical to use a different lane than everyone else, but the choice of which a country wants to use is arbitrary, and not a matter of truth or falsity.

Such is the case for the meanings of hand gestures or slang terms. It’s not a matter of what’s true or false, but rather what the parties involved intend to convey and to whom they are doing the conveying.

Now if we can agree that choosing definitions is like choosing the lane in which one can legally drive, then that’s settled.

 

[PRmerger]

Now if we can agree that choosing definitions is like choosing the lane in which one can legally drive, then that’s settled.

Sure.

So we are agreed that fundamentalism can apply to all sorts of arenas. It is not just religious or political people who can be fundamentalists.

 

[PRmerger]

Sure.

So we are agreed that fundamentalism can apply to all sorts of arenas. It is not just religious or political people who can be fundamentalists.

Incidentally, Oreoracle, I hope you will not object to my use of the word “agnostic” outside of the arena of religion.

I have used it a multitude of times outside of religious realm (insofar as the debate about the existence of God goes). I am also not a fundamentalist in having such a narrow universe of discourse.

To wit:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4772659&postcount=47
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7421809&postcount=657
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8625188&postcount=347
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8764222&postcount=986
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9361965&postcount=481

 

[Oreoracle]

So we are agreed that fundamentalism can apply to all sorts of arenas. It is not just religious or political people who can be fundamentalists.

Sure, you can define it as you wish. Just don’t expect your broader conception to elicit the same response as the more popular conception. The bottom line is that I am not as dangerous as a fundamentalist in the religious sense.

As for whether I am a fundamentalist in your sense of the word or not, I simply don’t think morals have truth values. (I don’t know, for example, what it would mean to prove a moral, or to find evidence for the truth of a moral, etc.) I abide by morals, but I acknowledge them as more or less widely accepted preferences. I prefer to treat others well, so I do. When I don’t, it typically bothers me, so I generally avoid abusing people.

You could make endless arguments about how society would collapse if people didn’t abide by certain morals, but then you’ve just pushed the question back one step–you would have to prove that society should exist. And you could argue that, if society didn’t exist, then humans wouldn’t develop naturally. But then you have to demonstrate that humans should develop naturally. Eventually you’ll just assume a moral as axiomatic, and this would be your preference.

Incidentally, Oreoracle, I hope you will not object to my use of the word “agnostic” outside of the arena of religion.

Not at all. In fact, I think “cross-dressing agnostic” is much more entertaining than the religious usage.