“So we’ve got beliefs P and Q. Let’s say Q is “obviously unreasonable” by virtue of beliefs R(1), R(2), R(3), and so forth, when taken as a set. Let’s leave aside considerations of individual or joint sufficiency. Call this set {R}. So {R} implies that Q is false ({R} –> ~Q). To say that belief P does not make belief Q obviously unreasonable is merely to say that P is not a member of {R}. And I think this is what we’re arguing over. Figuring out whether P is or is not contained in {R} may or may not be worth doing, depending on the contents of the argument.”
~ our own William Brafford in the comments to his latest post, doing his best to sully the reputation of internet comboxes everywhere.
Cornelius 
wardsmith 
Tod Kelly 
Tom Van Dyke 
Murali 
James Hanley 
Jaybird 
Fish 
Will Truman 
Borat: “I do a picture, only small, of the Tishnik Masacre. Where many Uzbeks…crushed!”
Kindly Gray Hippie: “How did you feel when you drew this?”
Borat: “Very proud!”.
KGH: “I’m just listening with sadness…a little sadness for your people…?”
Borat: “Yes…no, it is not sad. It is us who do the kill!”
When in doubt,
{ 5 comments }
Wha-? Whoa!? Hey!
(Does the reputation of internet comboxes really need my help?)
Hey I didn’t say it was a bad thing…. ;-)
Oh. There it is. I see what you did.
I’d just like to say that I adore that paragraph.
I asked William to take up some math blogging. He won’t bite, but this is as close as we’ll get I bet. Magisterial.
Comments on this entry are closed.