This is an excellent article on the sort of simplistic thinking and rationalizing that all too often results in the sort of mindless drivel of opinion in the press and, of course, on this list.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/mm/the_fallacy_of_gray/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Sophisticate: "The world isn't black and white. No one does pure good or pure bad. It's all gray. Therefore, no one is better than anyone else."
The Zetet: "Knowing only gray, you conclude that all grays are the same shade. You mock the simplicity of the two-color view, yet you replace it with a one-color view..."
-- Marc Stiegler, David's Sling
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-- Ed Leafe
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/C50F0AD6-ED83-4EB0-9AC5-480E4D724998@leafe.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Ed Leafe <ed@leafe.com> wrote:
>
I tried reading it but gave up. It is the most addled, mismash of words I
have ever read. I could not find the point any where.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Leafe" <ed@leafe.com>
To: "ProFox Mailing List" <profox@leafe.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 9:48 AM
Subject: [OT] The Fallacy of Gray
> This is an excellent article on the sort of simplistic thinking and
> rationalizing that all too often results in the sort of mindless drivel of
> opinion in the press and, of course, on this list.
>
> http://lesswrong.com/lw/mm/the_fallacy_of_gray/
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> The Sophisticate: "The world isn't black and white. No one does pure
> good or pure bad. It's all gray. Therefore, no one is better than anyone
> else."
>
> The Zetet: "Knowing only gray, you conclude that all grays are the same
> shade. You mock the simplicity of the two-color view, yet you replace it
> with a one-color view..."
>
> -- Marc Stiegler, David's Sling
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
>
> -- Ed Leafe
>
>
>
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/DBF7D4765D9148F598C86266E55FB47E@dual
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
On Feb 24, 2010, at 10:26 AM, Nicholas Geti wrote:
> I tried reading it but gave up. It is the most addled, mismash of words I
> have ever read. I could not find the point any where.
Why am I not surprised? ;-)
'Right' and 'Wrong' are not absolutes. Two people can be wrong, but that doesn't mean that their errors are equal, and the fallacy is to claim that since both are "wrong", they are equally valid explanations.
-- Ed Leafe
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/74247D9E-993D-4B5D-9813-2BF60DB899CB@leafe.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
There are people in mental institutions who cannot make choose between
either side of the same coin. Congress is another institutions that cannot
come to a conclusion. One has to go through life and make decisions all the
time and not waste energy being conflicted about every choice. The ultimate
end of not making choices is exhibited by going into a catatonic state.
There are writers who write about such esoteric topics in a clear and
concise way. The author of your article is not one of them.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Leafe" <ed@leafe.com>
To: "ProFox Email List" <profox@leafe.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 10:50 AM
Subject: Re: [OT] The Fallacy of Gray
> On Feb 24, 2010, at 10:26 AM, Nicholas Geti wrote:
>
>> I tried reading it but gave up. It is the most addled, mismash of words I
>> have ever read. I could not find the point any where.
>
>
> Why am I not surprised? ;-)
>
> 'Right' and 'Wrong' are not absolutes. Two people can be wrong, but that
> doesn't mean that their errors are equal, and the fallacy is to claim that
> since both are "wrong", they are equally valid explanations.
>
>
> -- Ed Leafe
>
>
>
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/311F8861F796416C9959313C98C63B9B@dual
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
And we wonder why we're in the condition globally that we're in.
Two wrongs are purely and simply wrong and do not make a right, or even a
shade of gray of a right, unless of course you are trying to justify to
yourself that it is ok to do whatever you were doing that you knew was
wrong.
-----Original Message-----
From: profox-bounces@leafe.com [mailto:profox-bounces@leafe.com] On Behalf
Of Ed Leafe
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 9:51 AM
To: ProFox Email List
Subject: Re: [OT] The Fallacy of Gray
On Feb 24, 2010, at 10:26 AM, Nicholas Geti wrote:
> I tried reading it but gave up. It is the most addled, mismash of words I
> have ever read. I could not find the point any where.
Why am I not surprised? ;-)
'Right' and 'Wrong' are not absolutes. Two people can be wrong, but
that doesn't mean that their errors are equal, and the fallacy is to claim
that since both are "wrong", they are equally valid explanations.
-- Ed Leafe
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/82FC9E455F49486C9F986AD50FBA3D31@StanPC
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
On Feb 24, 2010, at 11:17 AM, Virgil Bierschwale wrote:
> Two wrongs are purely and simply wrong and do not make a right, or even a
> shade of gray of a right, unless of course you are trying to justify to
> yourself that it is ok to do whatever you were doing that you knew was
> wrong.
Oh, geez. Do you not understand that "right" and "wrong" are not limited to your moral beliefs? That they also have another meaning of "correct" and "incorrect"? That because two answers are both wrong, that one can be closer to the correct answer than the other?
Wow, I guess I overestimated the willingness of people on this list to think instead of reflexively spew.
-- Ed Leafe
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/43A68172-DF51-4095-9A29-0E779D8394F8@leafe.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Nicholas Geti wrote:
> There are people in mental institutions who cannot make choose between
> either side of the same coin.
You are right. Yet the topic is not about making choices but about
"correct/incorrect" or "right/wrong" (not in the moral sense). What he
is saying is that the right/wrong-ness (in a non-moral sense) of a
preposition is not really absolute, and even if two prepositions are
"wrong" (in a non-moral sense) they need not be at the same level of
"wrongness" (in a non-moral sense), e.g. if I say my height is 1.82 mts
and someone else says my height is 3.54mts we may be both wrong, but
I'm off by 0.02 mts whilst he is wrong by 1.46mts, so even if I'm
"wrong" (in a non-moral sense); I'm a lot less "wrong" (in a non-moral
sense) than he is.
And in the case there is no better measure of my height, you'll be
better of building a bed for a person who's 1.82 mts tall, than if you
build a bed for someone 3.54 mts tall.
As you can see, this has absolutely nothing to do with indecision,
congress, esoterism, or whatever.
Hope I was better than the author of the article in explaining the
concept to you.
> Congress is another institutions that cannot
> come to a conclusion. One has to go through life and make decisions all the
> time and not waste energy being conflicted about every choice. The ultimate
> end of not making choices is exhibited by going into a catatonic state.
>
> There are writers who write about such esoteric topics in a clear and
> concise way. The author of your article is not one of them.
>
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/4B855A5E.4060109@gmail.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Virgil Bierschwale wrote:
> And we wonder why we're in the condition globally that we're in.
>
> Two wrongs are purely and simply wrong and do not make a right, or even a
> shade of gray of a right, unless of course you are trying to justify to
> yourself that it is ok to do whatever you were doing that you knew was
> wrong.
>
Yesterday had to go buy some groceries. From home is drive three blocks,
turn right, drive two more blocks, turn left two blocks, turn left half
a block.
But I got confused, I drove five blocks (wrong), turned right (right),
drove one and a half block (wrong), and stopped.(wrong). And what do you
think! I was at the grocery.
So I don't know about two wrongs making a right. But certainly here
three wrongs and a right made for five rights.
Go figure!
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/4B855BEF.2070406@gmail.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
As usual you leave out the portion about what is best for the community, or
the state, or even the country
Just because you believe something is gray or a lesser wrong, doesn't mean
that the rest of the community will agree with you and it is the community,
state or even countries welfare that needs to be the primary objective, not
some concept such as my wrong is less wrong then your wrong
-----Original Message-----
From: profox-bounces@leafe.com [mailto:profox-bounces@leafe.com] On Behalf
Of Ed Leafe
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 10:25 AM
To: ProFox Email List
Subject: Re: [OT] The Fallacy of Gray
On Feb 24, 2010, at 11:17 AM, Virgil Bierschwale wrote:
> Two wrongs are purely and simply wrong and do not make a right, or even a
> shade of gray of a right, unless of course you are trying to justify to
> yourself that it is ok to do whatever you were doing that you knew was
> wrong.
Oh, geez. Do you not understand that "right" and "wrong" are not
limited to your moral beliefs? That they also have another meaning of
"correct" and "incorrect"? That because two answers are both wrong, that one
can be closer to the correct answer than the other?
Wow, I guess I overestimated the willingness of people on this list
to think instead of reflexively spew.
-- Ed Leafe
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/6DABA596EB2F49648CFD7DAAF4D03999@StanPC
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.