State of Mind

swarm said:
greenberg There is no guarantee that if one simply reasons logically, one will have a "good life" or be happy.

Seems to be working for me.
Click to expand...
This is what is generally called anecdotal evidence.

Epicurus managed nicely.
Click to expand...
How do you know Epicurus was happy?
Oh, the list goes on, but if you really want guarantees religion is happy to give you as many false ones as you need.
Click to expand...
How do you yourself evaluate this as an argument? what is it actually?
 
Simon Anders This is what is generally called anecdotal evidence.

Since I'm giving you first hand confirmation it is not anecdotal evidence. Granted I'm a single data point, but that is a start.

Simon Anders How do you know Epicurus was happy?

Same way you know any one is. He reported being happy and it was confirmed by those who knew him. In fact he was so successful at being happy that people came to his garden to learn from him and for several hundred years followed his practices, until the xtians wiped them out.

Simon Anders what is it actually?

Take about a fist sized rock. Drop it on your foot. Repeat until you understand actually.
 
swarm said:
Simon Anders This is what is generally called anecdotal evidence.

Since I'm giving you first hand confirmation it is not anecdotal evidence. Granted I'm a single data point, but that is a start.
Click to expand...

You are not correct. The definition is broader.

The expression anecdotal evidence has two quite distinct meanings.

(1) Evidence in the form of an anecdote or hearsay is called anecdotal if there is doubt about its veracity: the evidence itself is considered untrustworthy or untrue.

(2) Evidence, which may itself be true and verifiable, used to deduce a conclusion from which it does not follow, usually by generalizing from an insufficient amount of evidence. For example "my grandfather smoked like a chimney and died healthy in a car crash at the age of 99" does not disprove the proposition that "smoking markedly increases the probability of cancer and heart disease at a relatively early age". In this case, the evidence may itself be true, but does not warrant the conclusion.

In both cases the conclusion is unreliable; it might happen not to be untrue, but it doesn't follow from the "evidence".
Click to expand...
Simon Anders How do you know Epicurus was happy?

Same way you know any one is. He reported being happy and it was confirmed by those who knew him. In fact he was so successful at being happy that people came to his garden to learn from him and for several hundred years followed his practices, until the xtians wiped them out.
Click to expand...
So you believe some stories in old books.

Simon Anders what is it actually?

Take about a fist sized rock. Drop it on your foot. Repeat until you understand actually.
Click to expand...
Yes, it was a cast rock and not an argument.
 
Simon Anders: "So you believe some stories in old books."

Well, it's not exactly a supernatural claim. And, you don't have to "believe" it. You can just try it and see if it actually works that way.
 
Coworker :BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
Stranger : I have different beliefs.
Coworker : Are you happy?
Stranger : No.
Coworker : Then your beliefs aren't doing you any good.
 
Changeling said:
Simon Anders: "So you believe some stories in old books."

Well, it's not exactly a supernatural claim. And, you don't have to "believe" it. You can just try it and see if it actually works that way.
Click to expand...
Wow you and swarm do quotes the same way. Kind of like a swarm or a changeling.

I never said it was a supernatural claim, just a weakly supported one, and also, I'll add now, anecdotal evidence.
 
Simon Anders: "Wow you and swarm do quotes the same way."


I've been doing this since long before new-fangled auto-quoting.




Simon Anders: "I never said it was a supernatural claim, just a weakly supported one, and also, I'll add now, anecdotal evidence."


If you have some reason why you think Epicurus' philosophy doesn't work, just say what it is.
 
Changeling said:
Simon Anders: "Wow you and swarm do quotes the same way."


I've been doing this since long before new-fangled auto-quoting.
Click to expand...
You mean since you joined in August.

Simon Anders: "I never said it was a supernatural claim, just a weakly supported one, and also, I'll add now, anecdotal evidence."


If you have some reason why you think Epicurus' philosophy doesn't work, just say what it is.
Click to expand...
There is a context to the way I am reacting to swarm the way I am. Rigor cuts two ways.
 
Epicurus

Simon Anders: "You mean since you joined in August."

Wrong. I mean since I first started participating in online discussions back in 1995.



Simon Anders: "There is a context to the way I am reacting to swarm the way I am. Rigor cuts two ways."

Sure. But the claim that "Epicurus was happy" is not an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. And, even if there never was a dude named Epicurus and someone else made the whole thing up, it's still someone's philosophy. Only the names have been changed to protect the innocent!

Anyone is still free to give the methods a try and see first hand if they work for creating happiness.
 
Changeling said:
Simon Anders: "You mean since you joined in August."

Wrong. I mean since I first started participating in online discussions back in 1995.
Click to expand...
Ah, well, then, you can't be the same person as swarm.



Simon Anders: "There is a context to the way I am reacting to swarm the way I am. Rigor cuts two ways."
Sure. But the claim that "Epicurus was happy" is not an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence.
Click to expand...
Again, context. swarm was rebutting a statement of Greenberg's. A statement that was not extraordinary. It was a sloppy response, as are many here, but one could have taken it as a certain kind of argument, a rather extraordinary one. I was pointing out the weakness of that argument.
 
Simon Anders
usually by generalizing from an insufficient amount of evidence.
Click to expand...

I'm not generalizing. I'm specifically reporting on my condition, something for which I have more than sufficient evidence and experience.

So you believe some stories in old books.
Click to expand...

When the claims are reasonable and well supported and I'm able to verify them, sure.

When the claims are unreasonable and irrational and unsupported and cannot be verified, then no I don't believe them.

I take it you believe anything you read then?

So do you have anything of substance or are you just going to wave your hands in the air and say "anecdotal evidence" again?

I was pointing out the weakness of that argument.
Click to expand...

Not yet you aren't.
 
swarm said:
I'm not generalizing. I'm specifically reporting on my condition, something for which I have more than sufficient evidence and experience.
Click to expand...
Oh, sorry. I took it as a response to Greenberg whom you quoted. It seemed you did not agree with his rather obviously true statement. I did not realize you were merely chattering. You are quite correct. In the context of merely writing about yourself it was not anecdotal evidence. You were still wrong about what anecdotal evidence was or was not, but I understand your response to me better now.


When the claims are reasonable and well supported and I'm able to verify them, sure.
Click to expand...
How did you verify that Epicurus was happy?

I take it you believe anything you read then?
Click to expand...
What a strange conclusion. Please show me why you think this is the case. And also, given the counter examples which are rather glaring in these forums, since I clearly have not agree with things you are written I read, why did these counter examples not make you question this 'take' of yours.

So do you have anything of substance or are you just going to wave your hands in the air and say "anecdotal evidence" again?
Click to expand...
As someone who 'does' enlightment, as you have claimed, I am sure you know that substance is much more ephemeral than we tend to think of it. I see this as a process. If you would like substance, in your own posts, or in others, I am sure you know how to start the ball rolling.

Not yet you aren't
Click to expand...
Actually, you have now pointed out that it wasn't an argument. You were merely writing about yourself. If it was an argument, than it was weak because it was, yes, anecdotal evidence. But now that we know it was not an argument against what Greenberg had said, it is a non-issue.

Or I could look at your behavior here and in the Enlightenment thread as hypocritical and notice all the warning signs that you are someone who cannot admit he is wrong and add you to my Ignore list.

Why, I think I will do that. Good luck with it and do keep practicing. Bye.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top