« first day (272 days earlier)      last day (3870 days later) » 

10:19 AM
@Oddthinking, it's easy to replace X and Y with things that don't make sense. It makes sense for the sneezing/cold analogy and it makes sense with the punishment and psychopathy question. You agreed to that reluctantly at the time we were discussing it, so I really don't see why you have rescinded your opinion.
@Sklivvz you have not shown a claim is explicit by definition at all, you simply gave the definition for claim and implicit. I think this is a good question to ask on meta though.
 
11:13 AM
0
Q: Why are several specific questions preferred to a single broader question?

Sonny OrdellI refer to my question of whether or not men have more extreme variations than women. The question is deliberately broad, because the claim the question is based on is deliberately broad. The conclusion reached based on the assumption that the claim is true is rather significant, extending to t...

 
11:59 AM
0
Q: Do claims on this site need to be explicit?

Sonny OrdellI based a question on what I considered to be an implicit claim. What's more my question was based on a widespread assumption. In a discussion with Sklivvz in chat, he stated that a claim cannot be implicit. This seems silly to me as implicit claims are something that are dealt with in many phi...

 
 
1 hour later…
1:07 PM
@Sonny, yes, I am not happy to have to rescind what I said, and I apologise. But I was reluctant at the time, because my head wasn't fully around it, and, as I explained, after getting some sleep, I could see the flaw.
 
Perhaps you can elaborate on what you see the flaw to be? All I see is that you have chosen an analogy that doesn't make sense.
 
It is easy to replace X and Y with things that don't make sense. But, there is a direct analogy with basketball example, which I chose to be clearer about the direction of causality. If it is invalid with the basketball example, it is also invalid with the psychopathy example, which isn't so clear.
 
I don't see the direct analogy
Could you repost it with more of an explanation?
@Oddthinking I would also appreciate some assistance with phrasing my question on people from a country being recognizable
I am excluding things such as clothes or anything like that
just going by face
eg in a sample of people identically dressed, some may be picked out as australian
obviously to have such recognizable traits they could not be recent immigrants
 
1:27 PM
You said:

> john is a psychopathy, so he will not respond to punishment. the lack of response to punishment is implicitly attributed to the psychopathy no?

That is still a trick question.

YES, the reason for the person saying that John will not respond to punishment is because John is a psychopath.

NO, the person is NOT saying the reason John will not respond to punishment is because John is a psychopath.

Let's face it. In reality, this whole issue is irrelevant. Psychopathy *is* strongly correlated to lack of response to punishment, by your own evidence. A may cause B, B may cause A,
 
@Oddthinking The person is implying that john will not respond to punishment because he is a psychopath.
It is that underlying assumption that I wanted evidence of
 
@SonnyOrdell So not recent immigrants (24%) or Aboriginal (2.3%) or of Italian descent (4%) or German descent (4%) or Scottish descent (7%) or of Greek descent (1.8%) etc. etc. etc.
 
Most of the studies I have found rely on the correlation. By no means does that mean that there have been further studies done looking for a firmer link or a cause, nor does it mean by any means that the question is not answerable.
@Oddthinking exactly. Ignore that I have not found a claim for the moment. All I'm saying is that it seems possible sometimes to, based on facial characteristics, note that someone is from a certain country.
 
@SonnyOrdell This becomes a philosophical question. How do you prove cause? Randomised, controlled test. Which isn't possible.
 
@Oddthinking No. I don't think you should dismiss the possibility of establishing cause so early on.
As I said a few times to you, I came accross studies involving brain imagine that seemed to be hinting at a cause, but were out of my depth
 
1:33 PM
How do you establish cause any other way? Brain imaging cannot establish cause.
 
That doesn't mean other people wouldn't be able to understand the issue better and provide a better question
OK, why can brain imagine not be used to establish cause?
 
Providing a better question is why the question was closed.
 
If psychopaths have a different brain structure for example, there may be a resultant difference that can be demonstrated to show a difference in response to punishment
I mean provide a better answer
The question itself was fine
 
@SonnyOrdell Philosophical question. All that brain imaging can do is say "Look, psycopathy (and/or lack of response to punishment) is correlated to blood flow in this area of the brain." In order to establish causality, you need more.
 
It was clsoed due to pettiness and nothing more
 
1:35 PM
I'm continuing to ignore those comments, because they aren't adding any value.
 
As a moderator, I don't know that the opinions of users should simply be dismissed. But, fine.
Tell me then, what do you think it would take to establish a cause of lack of response to punishment attributed to psychopathy?
 
@SonnyOrdell Insulting moderators does not help your case.
 
@Borror0, I really don't care about your opinion here. I'm sick of the continued ignorance I have been encountering. A great example is the claim that claims are explicit by definition.
That is not backed by any definition and there is evidence to the contrary
Yet, you and Sklivvz continue to insist that they are.
I would have thought the moderators of a skeptic Q&A site would be familiar with basic argumentation theory, in which the difference between implicit and explicit claims are noted.
But, do as you like. I don't expect a reasonable response any longer, and will be asking Jeff for his input.
 
Do as you like.
 
Yeah. Keep moderating based on willful ignorance. Have a great day.
 
1:44 PM
Do not blame our "ignorance" here. It takes two to tango. If I grant the assumption that you are correct for the sake of the argument, part of the blame also falls on your inability to communicate how you're right. There is clearly a inferential distance larger than you believe, and so any point you make will not register.
 
 
2 hours later…
4:01 PM
I showed ample evidence that claims can be implicit and are not simply assumptions. Your only argument that claims by definition are explicit was a definition that did not include the word explicit, nor any synonym of. It's seemingly a trivial thing, but the tendency indicated here seems applicable to non trivial questions/claims.
 
I said an implied premise is fine by me. I was pretty clear about that. Sklivvz disagrees with me about that, and he has a valid point in that implied arguments are highly prone to interpretation.
You seem unable to grasp that I agreed with you.
 
That isn't how it seemed to me. You quoted Sklivvz in your answer, in which his statement disagrees with the very question I ask.
I asked if claims on the site had to be implicit. You posted a quote saying claims can only be explicit. I disagree, you simply assumed you were right. That was frustrating.
 
I quoted Sklivvz to clarify a point he was making, and which you didn't understand. I then moved on to answering your question, saying that unstated assumption that were part of an argument were fine by me.
 
There you go again. Assuming I don't understand, rather than that I simply disagree and may have a point.
 
Let me explain my answer:

First, I started by explaining that, to Sklivvz, a claim cannot be, by definition, implicit. He believes a claim is something that was articulated. Understanding how he defines word is necessary in understanding the nature of the disagreement between the two of you.

Then, I went on to use that information to agree with you: what you call an "implicit claim" is an assumption, an unstated argument. Those are fine by me, even if the terminology you used is a bit odd to me, for as long as the argument being question is really there. As Sklivvz said to me in chat, tha
 
4:17 PM
OK. The problem I had is that an implicit claim is more than an assumption. An assumption does not necessarily imply truth. A claim does. It asserts that something is. A claim that something is, implicitly made is more than an assumption.
Otherwise, I would ask why in all the courses where implicit claims are dealt with in contrast to explicit claims, the word assumption is not used instead.
 
In any context that would be acceptable, that assumption will be part of a claim which implies that the person believes it to be true. If it was believed to be false, that premise wouldn't be part of the argument. Another premise would have been used, or the argument would be asserted as true, merely presented.
 
Yes, sure
You didn't answer my question however.
You seem to consider "implicit claim" and assumption as synonymous. I don't think that is fair.
 
@SonnyOrdell Actually, in the link you've provided, assumption is used to describe the phenomenon. The verb "to assume" is used, as well.
 
So, the fact that the word assume is used to describe an implicit claim, doesn't indicate to you that the two may not be synonymous?
 
No, considering the word assumption as a synonym to "implicit reason". (Implicit claim isn't used, at all, in the whole text. I'm assuming what you call "implicit claim" is what the author calls an implicit reason.)
 
4:30 PM
Yes, what the author calls implicit reason I am calling an implicit claim. That was the search term I used and I though that was the best example, despite not using the word claim.
I have to say again, an implicit claim is not just an assumption, it carries more weight. Or to put it another way: Not all assumptions are claims, however some claims are assumptions.
 
It's academic.
The precision of the terminology is irrelevant.
 
Well, I disagree it is just semantics. Anyway, I have to go. Thankyou for discussing the matter.
 
 
2 hours later…
6:56 PM
The "fun" bit of this completely over bloated discussion is that the given link claims are actually only explicit. So even the link you are providing @SonnyOrdell, strengthens my point. The claims we want here are explicit. Reasons can be implicit or explicit. But claims must be explicit. Get over it.
 
 
2 hours later…
8:49 PM
@Sklivvz if you want claims at the site to be explicit that's one thing, and an answer to the question I posted. You were stating objectively that claims cannot be implicit which was crazy, and why I asked the question. Don't worry, I won't bother discussing it anymore. There is little point when you can't be convinced either way.
 

« first day (272 days earlier)      last day (3870 days later) »