Legga EXPOSED as a LIAR - 40 - Sociopath Community

RE: Legga EXPOSED as a LIAR

natasha87 · 2019-09-09T21:01:36.9300000

i like how generic all the supposed exposing of inq is..'he lak totally showed himself up..now we know who he really is' wat. i guess the consensus of the voices in tc's head plus legga's autistic obsession has found inq to be at fau...

I was browsing through a few posts, and I finally decided to respond to this topic, after all. I can see that it continued even after I left, with a lot of insults thrown my way. I don't want to continue the debate, partly because it is, seemingly, doomed to run a new circle every time a word is re-defined or a goalpost is moved.

However, I wanted to give my two cents on the overall discussion to show appreciation, because I learned a lot from it -- not in terms of logic, but in terms of the characters on SC. I'll also give a long Bayesian rant towards the end (sorry). Apologies for the long post and for it being overdue. Btw, this is mainly meant for TC, Inquirer, PalePeach, MissCommunication, user22212 / V for Vendetta, and whoever else was actually involved in the discussion (if they're still around).

Firstly, I learned that TC is extraordinarily well-educated and well-versed in logic, but seemingly doesn't care about it. He responded to everything in much more clarity than I ever could. It was entertaining to read his posts.

I also learned that Inquirer only knows the basics of logic, but cares immensely about it. I also found out that his top value is saving face. Before this topic, I viewed Inquirer very differently. Nevertheless, a part of the discussion was enjoyable, as I got some fun practice in applying Bayesian logic.

Then I also learned that MissCommunication doesn't understand nor cares about the basics of logic, including the burden of proof.

I can give one compliment to Inquirer. He could plausibly have won, had he stopped right after asking me for evidence for my proposed list. But he didn't. Instead, he went on to gloat, throwing into the mix a list he could not justify within his own logical framework. While my argument on the subjectivity of anecdotal evidence is a valid one, it was thanks to his blundering that Turncoat and I could demonstrate our points with such clarity.

The second compliment I could plausibly give Inquirer is that this debate wouldn't have been so one-sided if it wasn't for Turncoat. Much of what I tried to explain wasn't getting through, until he stepped in to explain it, usually in much more clarity than I did. Towards the end, though, I think Inquirer resorted to being intellectually dishonest, disregarding every main point by Turncoat or myself, resorting to more and more semantics, taking back what he had said, being purposefully vague and non-pedantic/colloquial, and moving the goalpost.

In my view, the discussion wasn't so much about discovering swedes as it was about comparing two epistemic frameworks. Inquirer's, and the Bayesian framework. The ideas I put forth were not my own; every argument I used rooted itself in rudimentary Bayesian logic.

So when I said that I'd rather trust a framework built through decades of trial and error than the framework of a 20-something-year-old CS Swede, I meant it literally. This is also why I called his evidence Inquirer evidence, because it's by no means a universal standard. While the fact that I have been working in science since at least 2010 (which you can choose to accept or choose not to) does not necessarily imply that I know what I'm talking abut, it ought to say something.

If I were to give some credit to Inquirer, I would say that much of what he said makes sense, though much of what he said also falls under the category of logical fallacies (see Turncoat's crackdown of them, with the best one being `my reasoning is correct on the basis that it is reasonable,` or something along those lines).

For example, one of Inquirer's main points is that one could plausibly trust claims based on the prior knowledge and probability: If my neighbor tells me he has a dog, then I can certainly choose to trust him based on the prior knowledge that many people have dogs and that most people I meet verifiably tell the truth about dog claims. None of this contradicts Bayesian logic. The issue is that I've never contested the existence of prior knowledge or probabilities, like Inquirer's strawmen comments made it out to sound like.

The Bayesian framework allows for several subjective standards of evidence. The main difference of Inquirer's framework w.r.t. Bayesian logic is that he tries to argue that certain claims (Swedish SC count) must *necessarily* be universally justified by a specific standard of evidence -- the standard he arbitrarily made up after rejecting the actual universal standard which has been set out specifically to answer the problem he's trying to answer. The Bayesian framework allows for such a subjective standard, but does not enforce it universally, which is the main difference.

I can break down why enforcing a subjective standard universally is an issue, even purely mathematically. For the sake of the illustration, I'll adopt Inquirer's point of view as I best see it. There are three standards of evidence which we could list in an order of stringency: A (Legga), B (Inquirer), C (John Johnson). How likely is person X Swedish (from 1 to 100)? Let's say A, B, and C score 30, 50, 70, respectively. So A<B<C.

Without adhering to the universal standard of evidence, Inquirer must then necessarily argue that A and C can not be accepted as the standard. Otherwise, he's saying that 50 is the magic number, which is just, like, his opinion.

At first, Inquirer did not even recognize there being other standards. Then, he argued that B `could` be a reasonable standard, which I never contested, and refused to explain why he rejects A (save for stating that A is 0 and later retracting it). Then, he said A<B, and therefore we must accept B, but forgot to justify rejecting C. Then, he said that the C standard can not be met. Thus, even if B<C, it is impossible to enforce C (John Johnson evidence). I demonstrated that C is not an impossible standard (John Johnson standard for evidence) after he promised to admit he's wrong if I did. The application of the John-Johnson evidence completely undermines his argument that it's impossible to obtain evidence C.

After that he went on a tangent about reasonableness, which is reasonable because it can be reasonable (which rejects C and contradicts his statement that C is impossible to obtain), and that I need to show A=C (use C to prove list that was conjured up via standard A), which had nothing to do anything.

To clarify, I neither accepted nor rejected any subjective standard. Instead, I only contested their universal applicability as per Bayesian logic. I defended my reasoning within the bubble of my own framework, and criticized Inquirer's reasoning within the bubble of his own framework. Meanwhile, Inquirer didn't understand that there are two bubbles to start off with, and only attempted to criticize my reasoning within his own framework, which is nonsensical as I never accepted his framework in the first place.

The main problem with this debate, from my perspective, was that Inquirer was moving the goalpost at every turn. This is why I later had to confirm what he meant every time before presenting my arguments, so he could not post-hoc re-define what he meant.

At first, he requested for evidence. Then, he post-hoc re-defined `evidence` which he justified as it being a good (first move of the goalpost). Then, he re-defined `good` as being anything that is better than my evidence (second move of the goalpost). Then, he re-defined `good` as `reasonable` (third move of the goalpost). Then, he re-defined `reasonable` as that which is often obtainable but not that often (fourth move of the goalpost).

As long as he keeps moving the goalpost without admitting he's contradicted specific points he's made in the past, he can keep semantically down-grading everything he's said in such a way that his original posts, the ones people contest with, have lost their original meaning.

Nevertheless, he made a few good points here and there, and I learned a lot from this topic.

Have a wonderful day everyone. Please don't be mean.

Legga said:
Firstly, I learned that TC is extraordinarily well-educated and well-versed in logic, but seemingly doesn't care about it. He responded to everything in much more clarity than I ever could. It was entertaining to read his posts.

I care a ton about logic, but more so over the individual than anything. Not everyone follows the same rules, and in many cases allowing conventions to be broken can allow further communication than enforcing the limits of civilized, rational debate. It's more about consistency, their own established rules, than it is about an overarching objective set of how it ought to be. If however people are going to insist on it being that one, very thing, then there are rules within it that are meant to be followed for the sake of "professional" and "academic" discourse.

It's worth the question of if what they're doing breaks the flow or not, and how much it contributes towards the conversation. This is why I can lose hours of my life talking to Turquie; there's value in it that, without it, wouldn't have pushed me in some directions that have otherwise benefited me thus far. In the Thespian sense of it, "The Show Must Go On", and to my liking I'd prefer that it go somewhere at all as opposed to simply where I'd aim to steer it.

There are people like Med who do not conform to the usual logic and rhetoric despite their best efforts, and at those points the only way to communicate is to grant them some leway from conventional ideals in the hopes of getting anything out of them at all. I enjoy learning all the different rule sets like they're all different games, and how well I do vs don't do with them shows the difficulty settings and game mechanics. Much like a game however, if what the game devs did makes the game literally unplayable, it needs a bug fix.

TLDR; It's about if what they're saying is actually communicating anything or not.