Why Americans can't speak (or write in) English properly.

Messaggio di kattib

When it comes to grammar and speaking properly it is important to a point. It is necessary for understanding a statement and getting points across but after a certain point it becomes superfluous. For example, the use of who and whom is largely ignored because the idea it conveys it still the same and the flow of consciousness is not disturbed.

Also, language is not, and never will be, set in stone. Many words we use today did not exist until Shakespeare just made them up

Language is a fluid device used to convey an idea, if the idea can be understood without hassle then why should grammar matter?

Messaggio di TheMediator

Messaggio di Orranis

Your hidden premise is that everything written from one's point of view is necessarily biased. Not so. It's my opinion that my younger brother is a good basketball player. I've seen him grow up and play basketball for 15 years, and I can say completely unbiasedly that he is good. Could I have been biased about it? Yes. Am I? No.

You can't say you're not biased, someone else has to. And him being your brother makes you more biased, not less. I'm pretty sure we've discussed this before, but you're too damn stubborn to understand how things work.

I agree with both of you here. Hyper that was a terrible example. However, unless you happen to be working for a sandpaper company, saying that sandpaper is effective for smoothing surfaces is not really biased (Though truth to be told, every statement does have a little bit of bias, because you can't say you've used every substance for smoothing things).

Messaggio di Hyperspacerebel

Hyper that was a terrible example.
How was that a horrible example?It's perfect actually...it has both the necessary things: the possibility of bias (because he's my brother), but also a high amount of firsthand of knowledge concerning his skill.
I can say without any bias he is a good basketball player.

You seem to be under the impression that familiarity = bias. That's pretty stupid. A car mechanic is now biased because he knows more about cars than you? Not necessarily. A doctor is now biased because he knows how to fix you and you don't? Not necessarily. I'm now biased because I know more about my brother than you? Not necessarily.

You cannot just assume someone has a bias just because they have familiarity with the subject. In fact, if they didn't have any familiarity with the subject, but were still making a judgment, that would be biased.

And him being your brother makes you more biased, not less.
You spew this out, but you have no argument for it. I provide an argument, the least you can do is provide one of your own.

Messaggio di Squishalot

Good is a relative term, and by definition, requires bias in the absence of absolutely identifying its rank. Hyper, your definition of a 'good' basketballer might be in relation to scoring, defence, court movement, panel player rankings, MVP awards, etc. Without objectively identifying the 'goodness', the statement that your brother is 'good' at basketball is inherently biased by your opinion of your definition of 'good'.

Ditto sandpaper. Although it's more accepted, what makes a good sandpaper? Perhaps I want something that's smoother? Or coarser? Maybe a band sander is what I need for my purposes, and sandpaper, relatively speaking, sucks? Your opinion is still biased by what you think is 'good'. In this instance, there isn't a universal 'good'.

And Miyari - this is why it was in UI and Macros. :P

Edit: How did we go from grammar, spelling, comprehension and composition, to bias?

Messaggio di Hyperspacerebel

Good is a relative term, and by definition, requires bias in the absence of absolutely identifying its rank. Hyper, your definition of a 'good' basketballer might be in relation to scoring, defence, court movement, panel player rankings, MVP awards, etc. Without objectively identifying the 'goodness', the statement that your brother is 'good' at basketball is inherently biased by your opinion of your definition of 'good'.

I'm not a relativist, so your argument really has no effect on what I've said. Comparatives for me only exist in reference to an absolute.

Secondly, your argument has its roots in semantics. Perhaps I do mean something different by 'good' then you expect me to mean. That in no way faults my statement. It's like me saying bats are long and hard. If you refuse to acknowledge that I'm not referring to the same bat you're thinking of (the animal), that in now way diminishes the validity of my statement.

Messaggio di Squishalot

Good is a relative term, and by definition, requires bias in the absence of absolutely identifying its rank. Hyper, your definition of a 'good' basketballer might be in relation to scoring, defence, court movement, panel player rankings, MVP awards, etc. Without objectively identifying the 'goodness', the statement that your brother is 'good' at basketball is inherently biased by your opinion of your definition of 'good'.

I'm not a relativist, so your argument really has no effect on what I've said. Comparatives for me only exist in reference to an absolute.

Pft, you can't define what a good basketball player is in absolute terms, so your original statement that your brother is a 'good' player is a load of crap then.

Which is precisely what I was trying to point out, but you disregarded.

Messaggio di Hyperspacerebel

Pft, you can't define what a good basketball player is in absolute terms, so your original statement that your brother is a 'good' player is a load of crap then.
The absolute is someone who has perfected the art of basketball: never lets a point in, makes 100% of his shots, never gets stolen from, never fouls, etc.

Absolutes are extremely easy to define. Of course, basketball is a complicated game, so the definition would stretch out a ways.

Messaggio di Squishalot

The absolute is someone who has perfected the art of basketball: never lets a point in, makes 100% of his shots, never gets stolen from, never fouls, etc.

That's the definition of basketball perfection, definitely.

But you've stated that your brother is 'good'. What makes him 'good'? And why is your view on what is 'good' better than someone else's view on what is 'good'? Perhaps you put more emphasis on shotmaking, and I put more emphasis on defence?

This is my point. You're opining on what a 'good' basketball player is, and therefore, your statement about your brother (which is factual with reference to your opinion) is biased towards that opinion.

Messaggio di Hyperspacerebel

Messaggio di Squishalot

Perhaps you put more emphasis on shotmaking, and I put more emphasis on defence?

See! THAT's bias right there! You're the one trying to add bias to my argument.

I'm not doing that. I'm taking the absolute as a whole and comparing it to that.

I know it's bias. I'm saying that you're biased because you're inherently placing weighting on different aspects of his basketball game. I'm not the one denying being biased :P

What makes him 'good'?
His conformity to the 'perfect' basketball player.

And how are you classifying how 'conformed' he is?

Messaggio di Hyperspacerebel

I know it's bias. I'm saying that you're biased because you're inherently placing weighting on different aspects of his basketball game. I'm not the one denying being biased :P
What I said wasn't to accuse you a being bias. It was to accuse you of creating a bias and attributing it to me.

And how are you classifying how 'conformed' he is?
What is his shot percentage? What is his block percentage? How many times has he fouled? How many times has he lost? It's all very linear.

Messaggio di Squishalot

What I said wasn't to accuse you a being bias. It was to accuse you of creating a bias and attributing it to me.

But I'm not creating the bias, it exists inherently. And I'll explain with an example in the next response.

What is his shot percentage? What is his block percentage? How many times has he fouled? How many times has he lost? It's all very linear.

Is someone with a shot percentage of 25% 'good'? How about a shot percentage of 50%? How about a shot percentage of 75%? 90%?

You have to opine about what 'good' is. By applying your subjective definition of 'good', any statements of fact relating to your definition of 'good' must be biased by your opinion.

I'm heading into a meeting now, I'll be out in the next half hour or so, hopefully.

Messaggio di Orranis

Messaggio di Hyperspacerebel

Is someone with a shot percentage of 25% 'good'? How about a shot percentage of 50%? How about a shot percentage of 75%? 90%?

You have to opine about what 'good' is. By applying your subjective definition of 'good', any statements of fact relating to your definition of 'good' must be biased by your opinion.

I'm heading into a meeting now, I'll be out in the next half hour or so, hopefully.

As I said already that's a semantics matter. When I use the term good I mean above the median (bad below the median), so in this case >50%.

I don't think you understand what a definition is. Things exist prior to the words that signify them do. So when I say something, the words are essentially arbitrary to the point or truth that I am making -- it's the concept behind the words that is important. Yes, the word I choose to signify a certain concept might by subjective, but that in no way make the concept itself subjective.

Yes, but the point at which you consider something to be good is still subjective.

So says a relativist. I have already stated that I am not a relativist; I believe in absolutes.

Messaggio di Squishalot

Sorry, took longer than I thought I would.

it's the concept behind the words that is important. Yes, the word I choose to signify a certain concept might by subjective, but that in no way make the concept itself subjective.

You believe that the concept of 'good' involves being above the median, or top 50%. Even if there is an absolute concept of what 'good' is, the very fact that you opine about what it is still validates my point.

You cannot factually state that 'good' = above median. That is only your opinion, just as my opinion is that 'good' = top quartile.

Secondly, your argument has its roots in semantics. Perhaps I do mean something different by 'good' then you expect me to mean. That in no way faults my statement. It's like me saying bats are long and hard. If you refuse to acknowledge that I'm not referring to the same bat you're thinking of (the animal), that in now way diminishes the validity of my statement.

I missed this edit. My point is that you're saying bats are hard, but you need to quantify your definition of 'hard' before that statement goes from being biased opinion (spiders think that rolled-up newspapers/magazines are hard, timber loggers think that a 10m sapling is short) to fact. Remember, I'm not saying that your statement is invalid. I'm saying that your statement is inherently biased by your opinion on the absolute concept of 'good'.

Messaggio di Monday

I personally believe that the general populace of America can't speak or write properly because they are stupid...

And they don't apply themselves to learning.

Messaggio di Hyperspacerebel

You believe that the concept of 'good' involves being above the median, or top 50%.
No. Again, you don't understand. The concept pre-exists the label. Call it X if that helps you. Concept X is the concept of being greater than the median. I choose to call the 'good.'

Even if there is an absolute concept of what 'good' is, the very fact that you opine about what it is still validates my point.
There is no absolute value of good! There is an absolute value of being over the medium. I choose to call that good.

You cannot factually state that 'good' = above median. That is only your opinion, just as my opinion is that 'good' = top quartile.
Definitions aren't facts. They are definitions.

I missed this edit. My point is that you're saying bats are hard, but you need to quantify your definition of 'hard' before that statement goes from being biased opinion (spiders think that rolled-up newspapers/magazines are hard) to fact. Remember, I'm not saying that your statement is invalid. I'm saying that your statement is inherently biased by your opinion on the absolute concept of 'good'.
Again. You can't seem to get passed words, into concepts.
___________________

I'm going to try to sum this up.

Concept: A truth or reality as it is known by us.
Word: A means of signifying a concept.
Definition: A means of connecting a word with it signified concept.

My point: There are absolutes, and they are found within the realm of concepts. It does not matter the means I use to signify the concepts; that is arbitrary.

So given this, any statement can be broken down.

"My brother is good at basketball."
Now, what am I trying to signify by these words?
That my brother is above the median when it comes to shooting baskets, steeling balls, blocking shots, not fouling, etc. in the arena of basketball.

Now of course, all I've done is replaced words with more words. I can't give you the concept directly, only help you to understand it. The concept is there, however.

Messaggio di Squishalot

There is no absolute value of good! There is an absolute value of being over the medium. I choose to call that good.

Ok, I see where you are coming from now. But you're still biased.

How will you rank someone who is great in defence, and poor at shooting, relative to someone who is great at shooting, but short and poor at defence?

Whether you like it or not, even though you're trying to go back to the 'medium', you're implictly weighting the value of different parts of a player's game in order to be able to rank them between 'bad' (being below median) and 'good'.

Imagine a student with a score of 90% in maths, and 80% in science. Is he a good student? Is he better, worse, or equal to a student with 89% in maths, and 81% in science? If they are the only two students in the school, who would you say is the 'good' one?

If you can rank them, then you're placing your opinion on which subject is more important, and so, your statement that one is 'good' is biased. If you can't rank them, then you can't say that either is 'good', and you then need to admit that your original statement about your brother is biased.

Messaggio di Hyperspacerebel

How will you rank someone who is great in defence, and poor at shooting, relative to someone who is great at shooting, but short and poor at defence?
Relative to the end/goal of the action (which is to win). Basketball is a defined unit, as such all 'good basketball' is in proportion to its end.
This is different than your school example, because normally there is no defined unit. One guy is good in Math, the other is good in Science -- there is no Math-Science unit, so there is no 'good Math-Science.' Now, if you are to group things into a unit, there needs to be some unified end/purpose. Whatever that is, the good of the unit is proportionate to it. So say you put 10 subjects together and call it a curriculum. What is the goal of the curriculum? To learn all 10 subjects. And how do you measure the amount learned? You use grades.
TL;DR: You need to know the end of the action / group of actions before you can make a judgment.
Any ranking that is not inherent in the action itself or in regards to the end itself is biased.

Why Americans can't speak (or write in) English properly.

Invia risposta