General

Re: Alex Jones = Embarrassment to Liberty Movement

shackleford — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 23:58:23 GMT

Aristophanes:

Probability absolutely is a priori. You might want to dig a little deeper into what probability actually is.

I'm not going to argue about this, because you are pretty much right, but I tend to think Probability is at best a form of synthetic reasoning. You need a few stats before you can begin to deduce. a priori categories won't have that constraint. I don't think the business/financial community uses the term in quite the same sense that philosophers do.

I'm mainly speaking from the perpsective of the probability course I took at university as part of my math degree. It was essentially probability theory with proofs and derivations for the equations used in "sadistics" (as the probability professor joked) e.g. first moment, variance, covariance, distribution/density function, etc. We solved a lot of double integrals. Heh. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to fit statistics into my courses. I may take it as a post-bac, though.

Re: Alex Jones = Embarrassment to Liberty Movement

Aristophanes — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 15:48:59 GMT

Probability absolutely is a priori. You might want to dig a little deeper into what probability actually is.

I'm not going to argue about this, because you are pretty much right, but I tend to think Probability is at best a form of synthetic reasoning. You need a few stats before you can begin to deduce. a priori categories won't have that constraint. I don't think the business/financial community uses the term in quite the same sense that philosophers do.

Re: Alex Jones = Embarrassment to Liberty Movement

ToxicAssets — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 13:42:18 GMT

Alex Jones and Piers Morgan have little to gain by attempting to sound reasonable to an indefinite majority of the people. They are not running for presidency.

Instead both want to appeal to specific target groups within the general population.

And these groups scarcely intersect. So such a "debate" can be a major victory for both of them.

Alex Jones histrionics for instance have different effects on different people. Since he runs a niche business he can afford being seen as a lunatic by 90% of Piers audience, insofar as he succeeds in connecting well with the remaining 10%, he will turn a net profit.

That's because most people that already tolerate or even admire his antics will not be disturbed by his behavior, on the contrary, they will consider it legit.

Therefore Alex Jones can effectively grow his own brand by acting like that on Piers Morgan show.

Conversely, Piers Morgan also benefits. He manages to showcase to his target audience how much rage he can leverage from a typical leader of a group that his target audience already consider as repugnant.

So Piers Morgan grows his own brand.

It's win win.

The advances of a general "cause" of gun rights is a secondary afterthought for both of them. It is hard to specify how it is affected by this occasion because it's such a vague notion.

Maybe more people become disgusted with gun owners, as a short term impact of Jones craziness, but maybe some gun rights people that were marginally engaged now feel the need to participate more, and the long term impact might be positive (for gun rights people).

It's a complicated and massively unpredictable process, but it's also marginally important for both Morgan and Jones.

Re: Alex Jones = Embarrassment to Liberty Movement

shackleford — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 02:18:34 GMT

Probability absolutely is a priori. You might want to dig a little deeper into what probability actually is.

Re: Alex Jones = Embarrassment to Liberty Movement

John James — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 01:22:41 GMT

thetabularasa:
John James:
thetabularasa:
My point is that you know nothing of his individual circumstance. Presumably, you have no knowledge of who he has interacted with to what degree
Oh I get it. So you, like, made an assumption about my individual circumstance and then proceeded to extrapolate an entire blanket argument based on your baseless assumption...and lecture me on the dangers of talking about things you don't specifically know. Nice!
? WTF are you talking about?

Seriously?...

thetabularasa:
My point is that you know nothing of his individual circumstance.

I would love to hear how you know this.

thetabularasa:
I don't claim to know anything about anybody

Is that so.

Re: Alex Jones = Embarrassment to Liberty Movement

thetabularasa — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 00:54:47 GMT

Aristophanes:

That's nice a priori justification.

Two things:

1.) His explanation is expressly not a priori in that it is empirical.

2.) I think you should read a little bit about that term, other than the mere definition, because you are using it incorrectly. a priori refers to a category of knowledge. That is, it refers to something that it is impossible to verify apart from logic (which is a priori). It is not just a proposition that one does not know for sure or a synonym for "subjective judgement" as it seems to be used around here. Statistics and Probability are not a priori categories; they are empirical. Time, space, causation, logic; these are a priori categories.

I mean a priori in the sense of knowledge/justification independent of (or before) experience. Perhaps I have the wrong definition? I know etymologically it is Latin meaning "from what comes first."

Regardless, I'm not taking a social stance on this. I'm seriously wondering how JJ, and perhaps you Aristophanes, consider knowledge to be a priori at all. I realize that Mises speaks of this, but I've yet to delve into AE surrounding epistemology. Perhaps this is the perspective you and JJ are coming from? Basically, again, what I mean is this:

Presumably, JJ does not know Clayton. Clayton said something to the effect of not having an unfair advantage or receiving benefits as white people stereotypically do even though he is, himself, white. JJ says that he probably has, all while not knowing one way or the other. Hence, my a priori reference: JJ took prior experiences that he has presumably witnessed with white people and social benefits and induced a theory that Clayton has probably received these benefits without realizing it. If there was an a posteriori approach to knowledge, or "coming after" the experience of witnessing Clayton as an individual, then I would certainly agree that he could know one way or the other. My entire point is that without witnessing (experiencing) Clayton's life in reference to how he is treated for being white, there's no way JJ could know one way or the other. Hence my criticism of his blanket statement of "probably" receiving these benefits. He has no proof and thus no evidence to provide a basis for knowledge.

John James:

thetabularasa:
My point is that you know nothing of his individual circumstance. Presumably, you have no knowledge of who he has interacted with to what degree

Oh I get it. So you, like, made an assumption about my individual circumstance and then proceeded to extrapolate an entire blanket argument based on your baseless assumption...and lecture me on the dangers of talking about things you don't specifically know.

Nice!

? WTF are you talking about? You're entertaining, JJ, and I enjoy conversing with you in the forums, but sometimes I seriously don't understand where you're coming from. If you want to understand my position, read what I wrote above to Aristophanes.

Re: Alex Jones = Embarrassment to Liberty Movement

John James — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 00:18:04 GMT

Aristophanes:
Two things:

Yeah I thought about bringing that up, but I figured if I got sucked into calling out everything this guy does incorrectly and/or for nothing other than to seem above the fray, I'd never be finished.

Re: Alex Jones = Embarrassment to Liberty Movement

John James — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 00:14:01 GMT

thetabularasa:
My point is that you know nothing of his individual circumstance. Presumably, you have no knowledge of who he has interacted with to what degree

Oh I get it. So you, like, made an assumption about my individual circumstance and then proceeded to extrapolate an entire blanket argument based on your baseless assumption...and lecture me on the dangers of talking about things you don't specifically know.

Nice!

Re: Alex Jones = Embarrassment to Liberty Movement

Aristophanes — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 00:12:08 GMT

That's nice a priori justification.

Two things:

1.) His explanation is expressly not a priori in that it is empirical.

2.) I think you should read a little bit about that term, other than the mere definition, because you are using it incorrectly. a priori refers to a category of knowledge. That is, it refers to something that it is impossible to verify apart from logic (which is a priori). It is not just a proposition that one does not know for sure or a synonym for "subjective judgement" as it seems to be used around here. Statistics and Probability are not a priori categories; they are empirical. Time, space, causation, logic; these are a priori categories.

Re: Alex Jones = Embarrassment to Liberty Movement

thetabularasa — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 23:50:34 GMT

John James:

thetabularasa:
So now you're claiming that statistical odds = virtual impossibility if their inverse?

I have to assume you meant "they're"

Nope, I meant "of" instead of "if." Serves me right for writing that at 5:30 in the morning in the dark lol.

John James:

you mean to ask if I'm claiming that something that has even a slight possibility of occurring can be considered a "virtual impossibility". The answer is yes. Mathemeticians and scientists of many disciplines have no problem rounding off and saying (for example) that something which has a 5.3e-435 chance of happening, is "virtually impossible." A great example is the question as to whether there is life elsewhere in the universe. Cosmologists will readily admit that it is "virtually impossible" for there not to be life somewhere else in the universe.

That's nice a priori justification. My point is that you know nothing of his individual circumstance. Presumably, you have no knowledge of who he has interacted with to what degree, and because you generalize his individuality (hence, you consider him part of a group instead of an individual) you induce a probability, which you in turn consider any alternative to the probability as being a virtual impossibility, hence my reference to the 51% (being a worst case potential probability).

Anyhow, I just find it odd that as intelligent as you are that you could make such a blanket statement regarding race and alleged benefits he's experienced solely for being white, and then you claim that anything outside of that probability (which is somehow justified by taking an individual, applying his individual decision making/location/interaction with others, though this, in fact, is an inefficient way of "knowing" anything about him as an individual) is a virtual impossibility, which further strays from any knowledge whatsoever.

Basically, my point is that generalizing "benefits" an entire race holds vs. other races (or even at the expense of other races [not suggesting that you went that far]) is ludicrous from a standpoint of logic (I would count it as a slippery slop argument). There are individuals, there are individuals who are white, but to claim that you know anything about that individual without knowing what that individual has personally experienced is to grasp at nothing, in my opinion. I don't claim to know anything about anybody without first knowing something about them other than the color of their skin and how others I've witnessed (who also have that same skin color) have been treated.

I don't care about stances regarding race; that's boring to me. I just found it odd that you of all people on here, who seem to be the most consistent with his logic, carelessly stated you knew anything about him when, again presumably, you know nothing of how he's been treated due to his race, which flies in the face of his personal testimony stating he hasn't received any direct benefits.

Re: Alex Jones = Embarrassment to Liberty Movement

John James — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 20:51:10 GMT

thetabularasa:
So now you're claiming that statistical odds = virtual impossibility if their inverse?

I have to assume you meant "they're"...and therefore I have to assume by this you mean to ask if I'm claiming that something that has even a slight possibility of occurring can be considered a "virtual impossibility". The answer is yes. Mathemeticians and scientists of many disciplines have no problem rounding off and saying (for example) that something which has a 5.3e-435 chance of happening, is "virtually impossible." A great example is the question as to whether there is life elsewhere in the universe. Cosmologists will readily admit that it is "virtually impossible" for there not to be life somewhere else in the universe.

"Your move, chief" is an allusion to Good Will Hunting, the film.

So you're saying it wasn't even you trying to be cool, as if you had just laid some kind of smackdown...you were literally just quoting a movie from 16 years ago for basically no reason.

Okie dokey.

Re: Alex Jones = Embarrassment to Liberty Movement

Clayton — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 20:47:02 GMT

@JJ: good point... there's something fishy with Russo but he does make some damn good points.

Clayton -

Re: Alex Jones = Embarrassment to Liberty Movement

thetabularasa — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 11:37:53 GMT

John James:

How in the hell is my calling the statistical odds of someone being treated differently based on gender throughout their life anywhere near the same as assuming someone has committed theft (and has a stereotypical affinity for large berries, which I assume is another facet you were implying) based on their skin color?

Your comment makes absolutely no sense.

thetabularasa:
Your move, chief.

? You make one response that doesn't even make sense and feel so good about it that you feel the need to actually edit your post just to add this? As if this is some epic duel that's been raging on for months or something?

"Your move" I guess.

So now you're claiming that statistical odds = virtual impossibility if their inverse? As in, as you put it, "It's virtually impossible for your gender not to have afforded you better treatment than you would have otherwise gotten..." somehow equals a statistically probable scenario that he has, indeed, received some benefit because he's white/male (what have you)? It's as though you're saying at least 51% of the pie is virtually 99% of the pie.

"Your move, chief" is an allusion to Good Will Hunting, the film. You should check it out, came out in this time period we called the '90s and it's statistically probable that you have seen it...or as you might put it, it's "virtually impossible" that you have not seen it. Get it?

Re: Alex Jones = Embarrassment to Liberty Movement

John James — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 09:21:28 GMT

Oh you mean the Nick Rockefeller you and I talked about here?

Ever since I actually started looking into it and found literally no evidence (or even a hint that anyone else had found evidence) that this guy was even remotely involved with the Rockefeller family, Aaron Russo lost a lot of credibility for me. His story originally sounded quite plausible, then I come to find out this "inside source" is just some douchebag who just tried to cash in on a famous name which no one can even seem to confirm was his.

I realize this will be tantamount to sacrilege to some people, but ever since then I see the name Aaron Russo and feel disappointment and disinterest.

Re: Alex Jones = Embarrassment to Liberty Movement

Clayton — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 08:46:52 GMT

Have you come across any information regarding this?

Yes. Aaron Russo explained some of the motivations in one of his documentaries where he relates chats he had with Nick Rockefeller... they saw that feminism had the potential to double the number of taxpayers.... cha-ching. I think there are deeper and more powerful reasons for it, as well (reconsitution of the population to greater docility, increase of time-preference, discoordination of the family structure, child-support-as-privatized-redistribution, etc. etc.)

Clayton -