• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 06:45
CEST 12:45
KST 19:45
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
RSL Season 1 - Final Week6[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall11HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0
Community News
Firefly given lifetime ban by ESIC following match-fixing investigation17$25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced7Weekly Cups (June 30 - July 6): Classic Doubles7[BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China10Flash Announces Hiatus From ASL79
StarCraft 2
General
RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings Weekly Cups (June 30 - July 6): Classic Doubles Server Blocker RSL Season 1 - Final Week
Tourneys
RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event $5,100+ SEL Season 2 Championship (SC: Evo) $25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response Simple Questions Simple Answers
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame Mutation # 479 Worn Out Welcome Mutation # 478 Instant Karma
Brood War
General
Flash Announces Hiatus From ASL BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ [ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall BW General Discussion A cwal.gg Extension - Easily keep track of anyone
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues 2025 ACS Season 2 Qualifier Small VOD Thread 2.0 Last Minute Live-Report Thread Resource!
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Path of Exile CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project The PlayStation 5 Nintendo Switch Thread
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
Russo-Ukrainian War Thread US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine The Accidental Video Game Porn Archive Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Anime Discussion Thread [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion NBA General Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Men Take Risks, Women Win Ga…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Trip to the Zoo
micronesia
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 748 users

Critical Thinking and Skepticism - Page 9

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 7 8 9 10 11 41 Next All
prOxi.swAMi
Profile Blog Joined November 2004
Australia3091 Posts
May 03 2010 06:38 GMT
#161
On May 03 2010 15:31 tinman wrote:
why should i ask for evidence for that statement? are you reading what you're typing?

one moment you're saying that you don't hold beliefs for which there isn't any evidence. the next moment you're balking when i ask you to provide evidence for that belief.

Isn't this a cop-out? It's too easy to just keep asking people to justify their justification. It's not clever, it's counter-productive.
Obviously people should require evidence for their beliefs because without that requirement, you allow yourself to justify the unjustifiable. If everybody had your attitude, nobody would get anywhere. Your mother would still be justifying to you why you need to eat your vegetables even though the answer is mind-blowingly clear.
Oh no
phyren
Profile Blog Joined October 2009
United States1067 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-05-03 06:40:25
May 03 2010 06:38 GMT
#162

BruceLee6783 United States. May 03 2010 14:29. Posts 57 PM Profile Quote #

By the way...did anyone watch his video about math? He referenced "The Monty Hall predicament" which is something that I saw in the movie "21", where Kevin Spacey's character lectures on the topic of "variable change", in reference to using probability to your advantage. I don't agree with that, however. Perhaps it is that neither Spacey nor QualiaSoup do a good enough job of explaining it. I rewinded that part of the Youtube video and the movie over and over and over, and I tried my best to listen and think about what he was saying, but I could not grasp that concept.

Could someone knowledgeable about that concept explain it to me better?


It's somewhat subtle, but in essence very simple. You're presented with 3 doors. Behind 1 is a ton of money. Behind the other 2 is some gag prize. You're allowed to choose 1 of the doors and get whatever is behind it. Obviously, you would prefer the money, but with no evidence on which to base your decision, you might as well pick a door at random.

You choose a door, and there is a 1/3 chance that this door is the good one, but a 2/3 chance that it isn't. This 2/3 chance corresponds to the 2 other doors, each of which have a 1/3 chance of being the good one. Now the host shows you the gag prize that is behind one of the doors which you didn't pick. You are now given another choice: stay with the door you originally picked or switch to the remaining 3rd door. This is where the subtlety comes in. Most people default to their original logic and say "well, I still have no evidence on which to base the decision, so either door is equally likely, so I'll just stick with my first choice."

Actually, the original distribution of odds is still in effect. You have to think about it as the door you first picked had a 1/3 chance of being correct, while the collection of the other 2 doors had the remaining 2/3. After a door you didn't pick is revealed to not have the money, the final door inherits the total 2/3 chance. Thus, you are twice as likely to get the money if you switch doors when given the second choice.

Wikipedia link in case my explanation wasn't clear.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem
tinman
Profile Blog Joined May 2007
United States287 Posts
May 03 2010 06:39 GMT
#163
On May 03 2010 15:38 prOxi.swAMi wrote:Obviously people should require evidence for their beliefs because without that requirement, you allow yourself to justify the unjustifiable.


tautology, thy name is prOxi.swAMi.
"Politics is an extravagance, an extravagance about grievances. And poetry is an extravagance about grief. And grievances are something that can be remedied, and griefs are irremediable."
Lixler
Profile Joined March 2010
United States265 Posts
May 03 2010 06:40 GMT
#164
On May 03 2010 15:31 tinman wrote:
why should i ask for evidence for that statement? are you reading what you're typing?

one moment you're saying that you don't hold beliefs for which there isn't any evidence. the next moment you're balking when i ask you to provide evidence for that belief.


Are we assuming "truth" is a value to be sought from one's logical system? Then it obviously follows, because if you accept things without evidence, it's possible to believe contradicting things, one of which must be false.

I am reading what I'm typing. You're asking me a question but taking the answer for granted. Any kind of worldview that didn't think some kind of evidence was necessary to back up claims would be basically incoherent.
prOxi.swAMi
Profile Blog Joined November 2004
Australia3091 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-05-03 06:43:12
May 03 2010 06:42 GMT
#165
On May 03 2010 15:39 tinman wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 03 2010 15:38 prOxi.swAMi wrote:Obviously people should require evidence for their beliefs because without that requirement, you allow yourself to justify the unjustifiable.


tautology, thy name is prOxi.swAMi.


Excuse my feeble mind but I'm quite sure what you quoted fits not into the definition tautological. Care to explain your assertion?
Oh no
tinman
Profile Blog Joined May 2007
United States287 Posts
May 03 2010 06:43 GMT
#166
On May 03 2010 15:40 Lixler wrote:
Are we assuming "truth" is a value to be sought from one's logical system? Then it obviously follows, because if you accept things without evidence, it's possible to believe contradicting things, one of which must be false.

I am reading what I'm typing. You're asking me a question but taking the answer for granted. Any kind of worldview that didn't think some kind of evidence was necessary to back up claims would be basically incoherent.


so Lixler am i to understand that you hold beliefs based on assumptions, rather than conclusions drawn from evidence? your post on page 8 now requires emendation.
"Politics is an extravagance, an extravagance about grievances. And poetry is an extravagance about grief. And grievances are something that can be remedied, and griefs are irremediable."
tinman
Profile Blog Joined May 2007
United States287 Posts
May 03 2010 06:44 GMT
#167
On May 03 2010 15:42 prOxi.swAMi wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 03 2010 15:39 tinman wrote:
On May 03 2010 15:38 prOxi.swAMi wrote:Obviously people should require evidence for their beliefs because without that requirement, you allow yourself to justify the unjustifiable.


tautology, thy name is prOxi.swAMi.


Excuse my feeble mind but I'm quite sure what you quoted fits not into the definition tautological. Care to explain your assertion?


not particularly.

but i'll admit i did find your argument from eating-your-vegetables fairly creative.
"Politics is an extravagance, an extravagance about grievances. And poetry is an extravagance about grief. And grievances are something that can be remedied, and griefs are irremediable."
Lixler
Profile Joined March 2010
United States265 Posts
May 03 2010 06:46 GMT
#168
On May 03 2010 15:43 tinman wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 03 2010 15:40 Lixler wrote:
Are we assuming "truth" is a value to be sought from one's logical system? Then it obviously follows, because if you accept things without evidence, it's possible to believe contradicting things, one of which must be false.

I am reading what I'm typing. You're asking me a question but taking the answer for granted. Any kind of worldview that didn't think some kind of evidence was necessary to back up claims would be basically incoherent.


so Lixler am i to understand that you hold beliefs based on assumptions, rather than conclusions drawn from evidence? your post on page 8 now requires emendation.


You aren't to understand that, no. I was giving "truth is positive" as an assumption that I wouldn't need to explain.

Either way, you can follow this line of logic forever and keep asking "What evidence is there for that statement?", but what do you aim to prove? That some assumptions must be made?
tinman
Profile Blog Joined May 2007
United States287 Posts
May 03 2010 06:48 GMT
#169
exactly.

some assumptions must be made. quit pretending that your beliefs exist in some special dimension of demonstrability.
"Politics is an extravagance, an extravagance about grievances. And poetry is an extravagance about grief. And grievances are something that can be remedied, and griefs are irremediable."
Romantic
Profile Joined January 2010
United States1844 Posts
May 03 2010 06:50 GMT
#170
On May 03 2010 15:31 tinman wrote:
why should i ask for evidence for that statement? are you reading what you're typing?

one moment you're saying that you don't hold beliefs for which there isn't any evidence. the next moment you're balking when i ask you to provide evidence for that belief.
lulz you might as well ask people why they only buy cars that work
tinman
Profile Blog Joined May 2007
United States287 Posts
May 03 2010 06:51 GMT
#171
that's a fair enough question too.
"Politics is an extravagance, an extravagance about grievances. And poetry is an extravagance about grief. And grievances are something that can be remedied, and griefs are irremediable."
prOxi.swAMi
Profile Blog Joined November 2004
Australia3091 Posts
May 03 2010 06:54 GMT
#172
On May 03 2010 15:48 tinman wrote:
exactly.

some assumptions must be made. quit pretending that your beliefs exist in some special dimension of demonstrability.

Assumptions are needed where evidence is incomplete but nonetheless based on the evidence that does exist. You devalue evidence whilst preaching the necessity of assumption.
Nobody denies the necessity of assumption. We make assumptions to get by in everyday life.
In addition, nobody claims their beliefs exist in some special dimension. They claim their beliefs exist in a dimension where evidence exists, and is useful to exploit.

By all means if you want to walk across the road completely ignoring the sensory evidence your eyes and ears are being bombarded with, going on pure faith that you will not be hit, please do so.
When you're half way through the air from being hit by a car, ask yourself again why we should not use evidence to draw beliefs.
Oh no
XeliN
Profile Joined June 2009
United Kingdom1755 Posts
May 03 2010 06:54 GMT
#173
Tinman I'll give you an answer in the interest of debate, one should not belief without evidence as it is detrimental to the progression of mankind, also belief without evidence can be seen as having great influence in the violence, oppression and intolerance that we observe in the world on an every day basis.

Belief with evidence holds itself in contrast to this, now you have left a huge ammount of room for interpretation of "evidence" and even "belief" so I will interpret the former as "an accepted scientific proof for which there is numerous evidence supporting" and the latter "A position you hold where you have an understanding of something and consider it to be true"

So those are two reasons. I could add some more, such as philisophical point that to talk or consider anything outside of the world of sense, as Kant has argued, is essentially meaningless and much belief without evidence rests of the idea that such considerations are meaningful. Or even that the position there is no more value in belief with evidence than without, however, you cannot have your cake and eat it, or religious people ought not engage in scientific discussion if they cannot leave their belief without evidence at the door (and perhaps vice versa for scientists wishing to discuss religion).
Adonai bless
Lixler
Profile Joined March 2010
United States265 Posts
May 03 2010 06:54 GMT
#174
On May 03 2010 15:48 tinman wrote:
exactly.

some assumptions must be made. quit pretending that your beliefs exist in some special dimension of demonstrability.


I'm certainly not. But after your assumptions have been made "Truth is good" "Contradictions are false" etc. a logical system can be drawn, and certain beliefs or worldviews can be obviously shown to not be consistent with it.

Any faith-based worldview should be that in total, they shouldn't require evidence in certain conditions (e.g. evidence why God is fake) while not requiring evidence in other conditions (e.g. why God is real).
Severedevil
Profile Blog Joined April 2009
United States4838 Posts
May 03 2010 06:57 GMT
#175
On May 03 2010 14:29 BruceLee6783 wrote:
I watched some of QualiaSoup's videos, and I definitely understand the video about being open-minded. Matter of fact, I've understood this for years, but have always failed to convince others in that matter, possibly because the way that I worded it confused people.

I think about philosophy and such every single day. It's good to know that there are others in this world that think the way I think. The hard part is getting my points across. It's a skill, just like anything else. The more I practice, the better I get.

By the way...did anyone watch his video about math? He referenced "The Monty Hall predicament" which is something that I saw in the movie "21", where Kevin Spacey's character lectures on the topic of "variable change", in reference to using probability to your advantage. I don't agree with that, however. Perhaps it is that neither Spacey nor QualiaSoup do a good enough job of explaining it. I rewinded that part of the Youtube video and the movie over and over and over, and I tried my best to listen and think about what he was saying, but I could not grasp that concept.

Could someone knowledgeable about that concept explain it to me better?

Three doors. You get to pick either one of the three doors (by picking and not switching), or two of the three doors (by picking and switching). Two-thirds of the time, the object will be behind one of those two doors rather than the one you picked.

What confuses people is they don't realize what their initial choice of a door actually means. It's not, "I want the prize behind this door". Rather, it's, "You can't open this door. You have to open one of the others." That matters. You protect Door A from the game master. If Door A has the prize, the GM gets to pick his door to open at random... but if you picked a door without the prize, the game master doesn't get a choice --> his action isn't random --> his action tells you where the prize is. 1/3 of the time, Door A has the prize so his action is random... but 2/3 of the time, Door B or Door C has the prize, so his action tells you which one. Thus you play the odds and say that his action told you where the prize is, and you win 2/3 of the time.

There aren't even three doors - not really. There are two doors, one of which passed a trial by fire (a chance of elimination if it doesn't contain the prize) and one which did not pass any such trial. Clearly the one that passed the trial is more likely to contain the prize than the one you protected.
My strategy is to fork people.
XeliN
Profile Joined June 2009
United Kingdom1755 Posts
May 03 2010 07:05 GMT
#176
The trouble is Lixler "should" "good" and "false" are tricky words. Either you are coming from the understanding that there notions of good, the idea of truth and falsity and the resulting "should" are objective. However good luck trying to prove that, and if you are left with subjectivity there is little argument to be had. You are left with "if you hold that belief with evidence is greater//more beneficial than belief without evidence then belief with evidence is greater//more beneficial"
Adonai bless
tinman
Profile Blog Joined May 2007
United States287 Posts
May 03 2010 07:05 GMT
#177
On May 03 2010 15:54 Lixler wrote:
I'm certainly not. But after your assumptions have been made "Truth is good" "Contradictions are false" etc. a logical system can be drawn, and certain beliefs or worldviews can be obviously shown to not be consistent with it.

Any faith-based worldview should be that in total, they shouldn't require evidence in certain conditions (e.g. evidence why God is fake) while not requiring evidence in other conditions (e.g. why God is real).


so let me get this straight...

you make a "logical system" based on arbitrary assumptions for which no evidence can be offered.

then you demand that worldviews adhere to your logical system.

i dunno sounds a little like proselytization to me.
"Politics is an extravagance, an extravagance about grievances. And poetry is an extravagance about grief. And grievances are something that can be remedied, and griefs are irremediable."
lOvOlUNiMEDiA
Profile Blog Joined October 2007
United States643 Posts
May 03 2010 07:11 GMT
#178
Philosophy! Sweet!

Is anyone here pursuing graduate study in philosophy?

To say that I'm missing the point, you would first have to show that such work can have a point.
BruceLee6783
Profile Joined March 2007
United States196 Posts
May 03 2010 07:11 GMT
#179
Actually, the original distribution of odds is still in effect.

You have enemies? Good. It means you stood up for something.
Lixler
Profile Joined March 2010
United States265 Posts
May 03 2010 07:11 GMT
#180
On May 03 2010 16:05 tinman wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 03 2010 15:54 Lixler wrote:
I'm certainly not. But after your assumptions have been made "Truth is good" "Contradictions are false" etc. a logical system can be drawn, and certain beliefs or worldviews can be obviously shown to not be consistent with it.

Any faith-based worldview should be that in total, they shouldn't require evidence in certain conditions (e.g. evidence why God is fake) while not requiring evidence in other conditions (e.g. why God is real).


so let me get this straight...

you make a "logical system" based on arbitrary assumptions for which no evidence can be offered.

then you demand that worldviews adhere to your logical system.

i dunno sounds a little like proselytization to me.


I'm not demanding that anyone else's worldviews adhere to my logical system, only that my worldviews adhere to it. If anyone should want me to accept their worldview, then obviously they would have to demonstrate to me in some way that it is superior in some way to mine.

If I just accepted their worldview based on nothing, my "beliefs" would be fairly meaningless, the same with any statement I made.

And I sort of have a "practical" fallback to requiring evidence, otherwise I would obviously agree that anything is arbitrary. But since the OP is, to some extent, concerned with real-life interaction, I can just draw anything back to that.

On May 03 2010 16:05 XeliN wrote:
The trouble is Lixler "should" "good" and "false" are tricky words. Either you are coming from the understanding that there notions of good, the idea of truth and falsity and the resulting "should" are objective. However good luck trying to prove that, and if you are left with subjectivity there is little argument to be had. You are left with "if you hold that belief with evidence is greater//more beneficial than belief without evidence then belief with evidence is greater//more beneficial"


I should hope I wasn't trying to say truth and falsity were objectively good and bad, only that any kind of "worldview" that seeks truth should obviously accept this.

The tautology you've presented is kind of a more fundamental problem than just this, I think. Any kind of logical conclusion you make from something can be reduced to a repetition of the premises.
Prev 1 7 8 9 10 11 41 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
RSL Revival
10:00
Season 1: Playoffs FINALS
Classic vs ClemLIVE!
Tasteless6848
Crank 1418
IndyStarCraft 199
Rex118
3DClanTV 77
IntoTheiNu 50
LiquipediaDiscussion
Sparkling Tuna Cup
10:00
Weekly #97
CranKy Ducklings79
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Tasteless 6848
Crank 1418
IndyStarCraft 199
Rex 118
MindelVK 26
StarCraft: Brood War
Horang2 29170
Jaedong 3127
Pusan 747
BeSt 651
Larva 599
firebathero 592
Mini 257
PianO 254
Leta 207
EffOrt 162
[ Show more ]
Last 130
Sharp 108
ToSsGirL 99
Shinee 62
Hm[arnc] 19
Barracks 12
HiyA 11
GoRush 11
IntoTheRainbow 8
yabsab 7
SilentControl 7
Movie 3
Dota 2
XcaliburYe421
XaKoH 371
League of Legends
JimRising 460
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K558
x6flipin424
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor328
Other Games
tarik_tv19388
gofns12125
FrodaN563
shahzam424
Happy365
DeMusliM312
crisheroes301
SortOf145
Organizations
StarCraft 2
ComeBackTV 1367
StarCraft: Brood War
lovetv 9
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 12 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH302
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• lizZardDota2119
Upcoming Events
FEL
4h 15m
Elazer vs Spirit
Gerald vs MaNa
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
7h 15m
Bonyth vs Dewalt
QiaoGege vs Dewalt
Hawk vs Bonyth
Sziky vs Fengzi
Mihu vs Zhanhun
QiaoGege vs Zhanhun
Fengzi vs Mihu
Wardi Open
1d
Replay Cast
1d 23h
WardiTV European League
2 days
PiGosaur Monday
2 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
3 days
Replay Cast
3 days
The PondCast
3 days
Replay Cast
4 days
[ Show More ]
Epic.LAN
5 days
CranKy Ducklings
5 days
Epic.LAN
6 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
6 days
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
Sparkling Tuna Cup
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
HSC XXVII
NC Random Cup

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
Acropolis #3
CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
2025 ACS Season 2: Qualifier
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
Championship of Russia 2025
RSL Revival: Season 1
Murky Cup #2
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters

Upcoming

CSL Xiamen Invitational
CSL Xiamen Invitational: ShowMatche
2025 ACS Season 2
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
K-Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
SEL Season 2 Championship
FEL Cracov 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
Underdog Cup #2
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.