I got all that originally. But in order to say something is wrong you have to know what is correct. Therefore since no one can say that it is either wrong or correct, then the discussion is all hot air.
You height example doesn't demonstrate anything. All measurements of the physical world are wrong; there is a tolerance that always exist for any given measurement. You cannot say one is less wrong than the other. In your height example we know that it can be measured to a closer tolerance than your numbers so any number outside what we normally accept as reasonable is considered wrong. All others are said to be correct. I would not get into a philosophical argument as to which one is wronger. That smacks of the same discussion of the early Greek philosophers who figured they could logically determine the number of teeth in a horse's mouth. I would just go out and count and forget wasting my time trying to deduce the answer. In other words if you cannot come up with a model or set of assumptions you cannot deduce anything. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ricardo Aráoz" <[email protected]> To: "ProFox Email List" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 11:57 AM Subject: Re: [OT] The Fallacy of Gray > 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. >> > > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] 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/7809f5fbc4e9408c8d169ed32ba0f...@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.
