Some Things That Might Not Be True

[akirlu]

A theoretical framework that supports conclusions I agree with is a sound theoretical framework. ("Sound" here in the technical sense -- i.e. incorporates a logically valid argument, and is based on true premises

Comments

[smofbabe]

Plus "If I repeat my premises again using slightly different wording, someone who questions their truth will be enlightened and will of course then agree with me"

[akirlu]

Yes, that's a good one as well.

[kalimac]

In person, it's "If I repeat my premises using exactly the same wording, but louder ..."

[akirlu]

This also works on foreigners who have the cheek to not speak English.

[liveavatar]

Indeed.

What chaps my hide, though, is that sometimes those things *are* true. Not saying that they are in this particular instance. But I'm all too aware of times where they're true, singly or in combination.

And then the ice weasels come.

[akirlu]

How do ice weasels pee, that's what I want to know.

And yes, a-bo-lutely they *can* all be true. Sure. But in general, I should probably have additional evidence of that before concluding it, because none of the above is *necessarily* true.

[liveavatar]

The catch is that, unless you have that evidence, you often just don't know, and if you weren't there, wherever "there" was, you're not likely to get that evidence. Which is when people arrive at conclusions based on which speaker they like best (you could squeeze that into the "theoretical framework that supports conclusions I agree with" pattern), or on what their preacher said. (Still not talking about the GTBF.)

Not that I'm thinking of a bunch of painful examples of that kind of thing or anything.

I think ice weasels must have some some special cold-weather adaptations, like the penguins, so that all their extremities remain heated even though they're emitting ice cubes.