> I am a third party confirming that, yes, in this case, they are as they seem to that person
And now I am asking you. Two people agreeing that something "seems" true does not render it true in actual/shared reality.
> if you believe their position, as confirmed by a third party, contains genuine flaws, it might just be your biases showing through
This is one possibility, but another possibility is that their position, and the "confirmation" by the third party, is erroneous, perhaps due to their biases.
> nonetheless, I encourage you to clearly (and succinctly) articulate them, and try to convince us that said person's views do not reflect reality
I do not "have a dog" in this object level fight - my interest is in the abstract: what are the various ways in which human beings perceive reality incorrectly, and is it possible to get even one of them to explicitly acknowledge that it is possible that their belief is incorrect, at least to some degree....and, might it be possible that this ~methodology (exerting effort to discover what is actually true, and fine-grained "hard stops" preventing that discovery, etc) may have materially important utility to humanity, and should therefore perhaps be taken seriously.
Note also that I explicitly encourage disagreement, as well as avoiding the premature formation of conclusions (I did not do this explicitly before, so I am appending it here).
As the third party here, I am actually the unbiased one in your disagreement with the other person, and I am simply saying that your position is unconvincing compared to theirs.
You, meanwhile, by attacking this person specifically, definitely seem to "have a dog" in this fight, despite your claims to the contrary.
Just take it from an outside observer, you could stand a little introspection to apply some of the solipsistic philosophical musings to yourself.
Or, if you believe something that person said to be false, feel free to make a convincing case for it.
I am happy to answer any questions you pose to me - unless I am overlooking something, I have not missed anything you have asked of me.
However, you have missed some questions I asked of you. I would also enjoy reading any answers you may have to questions I have asked of others upthread.
And of course, you have no obligation to answer my questions, but I would prefer if we are explicit and accurate about how each of us conducts ourselves in the conversation (ie: if one of us does not answer specific questions, acknowledge that simply and unequivocally).
And if you were implicitly posing "Are things always as they seem?" to me, my answer is: no, things are not always as they seem. In fact, I argue that they are almost always not what they seem, and that this is necessarily the case due to the physical architecture of the mind/reality, plus a whole bunch of other scientifically uncontroversial reasons.
> As the third party here, I am actually the unbiased one in your disagreement with the other person...
We are discussing an object level matter - it is possible that you do not have bias on this matter, but that you personally perceive yourself to be unbiased is not convincing, and is certainly subject to a variety of possible well known phenomenon in psychology/etc.
At the very least, I think the most epistemically sound stance is that it is not known whether you or I have some bias, or the degree to which each of us is biased. After all, science has a fair amount of depth in this realm and if you take their findings even partially seriously, that there is at least some uncertainty seems highly certain.
> ...and I am simply saying that your position is unconvincing compared to theirs.
I am less interested in being persuasive than I am in being correct. Actually, I have enough experience in this domain that I believe it may not be possible to convince certain people of certain things, at least on current communication platforms like this one, in cultures like this one. I think this could change with more sophisticated platforms and cultures, but such things are not the purpose or goal of HN (dang has been explicit about this).
> You, meanwhile, by attacking this person specifically, definitely seem to "have a dog" in this fight, despite your claims to the contrary.
As I already asked you (and you did not answer): "Are things always as they seem?"
I respectfully challenge you to answer this question.
> Just take it from an outside observer, you could stand a little introspection to apply some of the solipsistic philosophical musings to yourself.
Ah, "solipsism", color me not shocked at all that this idea manifested in the mind of someone I am having this type of conversation with.
Do you believe that I am a solipsist, or that the ideas I have written here are fundamentally and necessarily solipsistic?
> Or, if you believe something that person said to be false, feel free to make a convincing case for it.
The first burden of proof lies with the one making an assertion - I challenged the assertion above, no response has appeared thus far.
As for making a case, consider this assertion:
>> He wanted to muddy waters precisedly at the time when is sounded like Ukraine has bioweapons precisedly when they were invaded.
Is this not mind reading? Or at the very least, stating one's opinions/inferences in the form of facts?
And if this is ok, then should Mr. Greenwald not get a free pass on the very same basis?
>I am happy to answer any questions you pose to me - unless I am overlooking something, I have not missed anything you have asked of me.
You have indeed! I asked if there was any specific part of the post you responded to, with which you disagreed. Since you did not provide any, though, we can thus conclude that you agree with what was in that post.
>>He wanted to muddy waters precisedly at the time when is sounded like Ukraine has bioweapons precisedly when they were invaded.
>Is this not mind reading?
No, it's drawing conclusions based on the available data. I also independently drew the same conclusions, so that should make you introspect a little, and ask what it is you're doing which causes people to conclude that based on the available data of your behavior.
>Are things always as they seem?
Indeed, are they? Is it possible that you aren't actually asking this question at all, and you actually agree with the person to which you responded? And you just think something else happened? Do you think this is possible?
On a higher level, you believe you are engaged in meta-discussion, in response to the actual discussion started by the other person.
I am thus engaged in meta-meta-discussion: My new question to you is, can you make a convincing case that your meta-discussion increases understanding of the original topic, rather than deflecting from it? Thanks!
> You have indeed! I asked if there was any specific part of the post you responded to, which which you disagreed. Since you did not provide any though....
I replied addressing that. If you are unsatisfied with my reply, please quote the text of the specific question you asked that you believe I did not answer.
Note also: I may not hold a position on object level matters - me pushing back on a claim should not be interpreted as a belief in the opposite (as is usually the case, in my experience).
> ...we can thus conclude that you agree with what was in that post.
You can certainly conclude that, and even assert it, but this does not make it true.
> On a higher level, you believe you are engaged in meta-discussion, in response to the actual discussion started by the other person.
This is my intent and desire, but whether this is a group undertaking in fact I cannot say, I can only hope.
> I am thus engaged in meta-meta-discussion: My new question to you is, can you make a convincing case that your meta-discussion increases understanding of the original topic, rather than deflecting from it? Thanks!
I would hope that it would help: the goal is be to highlight that perception and reality are similar but different, and that this is extremely important, but whether I am successful in the slightest I do not know - if forced, I would predict that I am not successful, based on hundreds if not thousands of similar conversations. This seems to be a very difficult nut to crack, but then I don't think that should be very surprising.
If you don't mind: could you state explicitly whether you will answer the questions I stated above (physically answer them, in this thread)?
>> You have indeed! I asked if there was any specific part of the post you responded to, which which you disagreed. Since you did not provide any though....
>I replied addressing that. If you are unsatisfied with my reply, please quote the text of the specific question you asked that you believe I did not answer.
and I replied to that reply, concluding from it that you had no substantive material disagreements. If you're unsatisfied with this conclusion, please reply with, for each disagreement, a quote of the claim, what you believe to be wrong about that claim, and your evidence for your assertion that the claim is wrong, and I'll evaluate your evidence to see whether it convincingly supports your doubts.
>perception and reality are similar but different, and that this is extremely important
Indeed, and, this is extremely important: isn't it possible that you only perceive yourself to be in disagreement with what the original poster said, but in reality, you are in total agreement, and have no complaints or criticisms whatsoever? Furthermore, isn't it possible that you only _perceived_ yourself asking the questions you think you asked, and in reality, you did not ask them? Is this a possibility?
> and I replied to that reply, concluding from it that you had no substantive material disagreements. If you're unsatisfied with this conclusion, please reply with, for each disagreement, a quote of the claim, what you believe to be wrong about that claim, and your evidence for your assertion that the claim is wrong, and I'll evaluate your evidence to see whether it convincingly supports your doubts.
My initial grievance is here:
>> (someone) The jump from "bioresearch lab" which to bioweapons. Making it sound as if there was something to "admit" in Ukraine having same labs as everyone has. Then you try to confuse it with bioweapons, anthrax attacks in America and completely irrelevant treaties about bioweapons.
> (me) Who is it that's actually doing the confusing here? It's certainly possible that Greenwald is dog-whistling "bioresearch lab" into "bioweapons", but is he actually doing that, and to a large degree (mostly, etc)?
Here one human is accusing another human (or several), whom he doesn't know, of speaking deliberately deceivingly, making ~invalid associations between things, etc - a not abnormal interpretation of this might be something like "this guy doesn't know what he's talking about, he's trying to tell a tall tale, he might even be a conspiracy theorist".
At the very least, there's little acknowledgement I see about the complexities and uncertainty involved. This is but one of my overall complaints about culture war arguments, people play so fast and loose with the truth. If there's a post about computing on HN, attention to detail and emphasis on correctness is bountiful and uncontroversial. But in a culture war conversation, I proclaim that the inverse is true - and, I also think this abstract phenomenon is a big deal in the big scheme of things.
> Indeed, and, this is extremely important: isn't it possible that you only perceive yourself to be in disagreement with what the original poster said, but in reality, you are in total agreement, and have no complaints or criticisms whatsoever? Furthermore, isn't it possible that you only _perceived_ yourself asking the questions you think you asked, and in reality, you did not ask them? Is this a possibility?
Of course, why not.
But you brought up solipsism earlier:
>> Just take it from an outside observer, you could stand a little introspection to apply some of the solipsistic philosophical musings to yourself.
Perhaps you cannot (or will not) think in these terms without falling into a state of solipsism (or impotency due to indecision, another common complaint), but it's certainly not necessary. It is possible to address these ideas as they are, and take them seriously (as opposed to representing that they are silly, woo woo, bad faith, whatever). Perhaps it is not possible in the mainstream, in 2022, but it is possible.
The evidence supporting their position is convincing, you may now present your evidence to the contrary, and I'll determine whose position between the two of you is more tenable given the evidence.
You see, raising questions does not add to any position in particular -- if you have questions, feel free to find the answers, and hopefully they will be ones which make your case more convincing than the case you are arguing against.
>Perhaps you cannot...
I think it is a bit primitive to make assumptions about what I can or cannot do. Perhaps I address these ideas better than you can comprehend, and you just _PERCEIVE_ it to be biting satire that cuts any hypothetical similarly-structured dissembling to the bone
One can presume whatever one wants. Whether one's presumption is correct is another matter.
> The evidence supporting their position is convincing, you may now present your evidence to the contrary, and I'll determine whose position between the two of you is more tenable given the evidence.
Can you clarify in some detail what position / point of contention you have in mind (just so we're on the same page)?
> You see, raising questions does not add to any position in particular...
I'm not trying to add to one position or the other, I have made this clear several times. You may not believe me, but that is my claim - let's mark it as a discrete difference of opinion and add it to The List.
> ...if you have questions, feel free to find the answers, and hopefully they will be ones which make your case more convincing than the case you are arguing against.
I've asked several of you above, I was hoping the answers would come from you! But alas....
> I think it is a bit primitive to make assumptions about what I can or cannot do.
"Perhaps" denotes a possibility - it does not required the formation of a belief. Now if you wer to say I might be engaging in a little provocative rhetoric, well now that would be a different matter. :)
> Perhaps I address these ideas better than you can comprehend, and you just _PERCEIVE_ it to be biting satire that cuts any hypothetical similarly-structured dissembling to the bone
Perhaps you are right. Perhaps you are not. Perhaps there is a complex, mysterious, paradoxical blend among all of us. I wonder what is true!
>I've asked several of you above, I was hoping the answers would come from you!
Feel free to ask them of yourself, if they help you arrive at a case more convincing than the one you are arguing against. As judge of your two's dispute, my own inputs shouldn't be necessary for you to make your case convincingly. If it is, your case is bad.
>>The evidence supporting their position is convincing, you may now present your evidence to the contrary, and I'll determine whose position between the two of you is more tenable given the evidence.
>Can you clarify in some detail what position / point of contention you have in mind (just so we're on the same page)?
The points of contention you have with the original post are for you to clarify in some detail. If you have no point of contention with their post, IE you agree with it, then I guess there's no disagreement.
>"Perhaps" denotes a possibility - it does not required the formation of a belief
I don't recall arguing otherwise, so not sure what you're getting at here.
> I wonder what is true!
One heuristic is, whatever you think is true, even if multiple people speak to the contrary. It's not a great heuristic, but _some_people_ use it. Eye roll emoji.
I am curious to know your thoughts on them. But that's fine, if you choose to ask questions of others but refuse to answer any asked of you, so be it.
> ...if they help you arrive at a case more convincing than the one you are arguing against.
I will repost this for fun:
>> Can you clarify in some detail what position / point of contention you have in mind (just so we're on the same page)?
-
> As judge of your two's dispute, my own inputs shouldn't be necessary for you to make your case convincingly. If it is, your case is bad.
I will repost this again, for fun:
>> Can you clarify in some detail what position / point of contention you have in mind (just so we're on the same page)?
-
> The points of contention you have with the original post are for you to clarify in some detail. If you have no point of contention with their post, IE you agree with it, then I guess there's no disagreement.
I've complied many times - you are welcome to read my reply, and I welcome you to point out what I haven't answered if you think that is the case. Or, we can continue with this approach, up to you.
>>>>> Just take it from an outside observer, you could stand a little introspection to apply some of the solipsistic philosophical musings to yourself.
>>>> Perhaps you cannot (or will not) think in these terms without falling into a state of solipsism (or impotency due to indecision, another common complaint), but it's certainly not necessary. It is possible to address these ideas as they are, and take them seriously (as opposed to representing that they are silly, woo woo, bad faith, whatever). Perhaps it is not possible in the mainstream, in 2022, but it is possible.
>>> I think it is a bit primitive to make assumptions about what I can or cannot do.
>> "Perhaps" denotes a possibility - it does not required the formation of a belief.
> I don't recall arguing otherwise, so not sure what you're getting at here.
I am getting at the "broadly accepted (or not, as the case may be) meaning represented by particular words (and I guess: how different people interpret/use them, sometimes not caring whether they are doing so erroneously):
perhaps: used when one does not wish to be too definite or assertive in the expression of an opinion
assumption: a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.
Note also: are you not guilty of the very same thing you accuse me of?: "Perhaps I address these ideas better than you can comprehend, and you just _PERCEIVE_ it to be biting satire that cuts any hypothetical similarly-structured dissembling to the bone"
I have to say, this is one of the more interesting and enjoyable threads I've encountered on HN.
It seems that this ad infinitum gibberish posting deflecting from the topic at hand is somewhat of a pattern for you, which would explain why you felt the need to deny you engage in "gish gallop" and other such dissembling off the bat -- because you'd been informed so many times that you do.
Since you've been unable to articulate any substantive issues with the original post with quotes from it and your most convincing arguments against them, it seems we can assume you agree with it, and are arguing for the sake of arguing, rather than for the sake of personal learning.
> It seems that this ad infinitum gibberish posting deflecting from the topic at hand is somewhat of a pattern for you, which would explain why you felt the need to deny you engage in "gish gallop" and other such dissembling off the bat -- because you'd been informed so many times that you do.
This style of thinking seems to have become quite the cultural norm - if someone challenges the narrative, rather than address their words they're declared by fiat to be "gibberish". If a person writes too little, their explanation is insufficient, but if they write more, they're "gish galloping", "JAQing off", etc. Thinking in memes is standard and expected behavior in places like /r/politics, but I'd expect a bit more from HN. What a world it would be if HN'ers could apply the same attention to correctness that they do in threads on technical topics to non-technical topics...and if we could find a way to do it here, perhaps we could teach it to others.
But of course, this sort of thinking "is" surely gibberish.
> Since you've been unable to articulate any substantive issues with the original post
The success of communication is a function of both the sender and receiver. It is certainly possible that what I've written here is useless, but the notion that the opinion of one side in an internet argument is necessarily completely correct seems a bit foolish to me. I am more than happy to consider that my words and ideas contain at least some flaws, perhaps even substantial ones....might yours be of a similar nature? Is it possible?
> we can assume you agree with it, and are arguing for the sake of arguing, rather than for the sake of personal learning.
You can indeed - in fact, it is entirely possible to go through your entire life assuming that how things seem to you are how they are. In fact, I'd say that this is by far the most popular approach, and humanity is reaping what they sow.
If you think I'm "deflecting from the topic at hand", ask me a question about the topic, and I will answer it. And as a benefit: I do not expect the same in return - you are free to ignore every question I pose to you, and I will at most point out your behavior, but I will not engage in childish name calling or stating pejorative opinions in the form of facts.
you already asked that of the other person
I am a third party confirming that, yes, in this case, they are as they seem to that person
if you believe their position, as confirmed by a third party, contains genuine flaws, it might just be your biases showing through
nonetheless, I encourage you to clearly (and succinctly) articulate them, and try to convince us that said person's views do not reflect reality