Bakker doesn’t realize that what he decries as “certainty” is actually nothing more than experience-informed probability calculation and pattern recognition. There is no reason one cannot take a logically sound position with confidence without having to assume the total impossibility of error in doing so.
You know, this repeated some of my own wording for how I navigate life, in terms of working from probables – which creeped me out a bit.
UPDATE – Sweet Friedrich Nietzsche, but R. Scott Bakker really can be a wangsty little girl. Now he’s whining that I have “lot’s and lot’s of theories” about him, which is ironic considering the amount of erroneous psychobabble he has been directing in my direction from the start. I have no theories, I have merely read his books and observed his behavior.
Except does he practice it? He has no theories? Yet to say something isn’t a theory is to assume the total impossiblity of error in doing so?
I mean, the wording above is actually quite subtle – “There is no reason one cannot take a logically sound position with confidence without having to assume the total impossibility of error in doing so.”
Yes, so he says there’s not reason you can’t do that. He’s not actually saying he does it, in saying so, though.
But lets read it charitably, for a moment. What does it mean when he says he simply acts as if he knows?
Does that fire off a belief instinct in others to believe him? Does it fire it off inside himself?
Can you say “Everything I say might be wrong” then go on for six years speaking only as if your right, relying on one disclaimer utterance from years prior? Does this work?
And because everyone else prudently avoided bringing it up…
Dr. Evil: You know, I have one simple request. And that is to have sharks with frickin’ laser beams attached to their heads!
Is he just having us on? Everyone did read the sharks with lasers bit, didn’t they?
The primary difference between Bakker and me is that he insists on operating in relative ignorance while avoiding the use of objective metrics that can be verified by third parties.
This isn't any method used in the practice of science? Which third parties? The ones of his choosing?
If you ask a thousand people to measure something by using a certain metric and they all report the same result, you probably have an objective metric.
The pornography observation about the first book would also be reported by every single person over a sample of a thousand or more people? This is obviously not the case?
You know, this repeated some of my own wording for how I navigate life, in terms of working from probables – which creeped me out a bit.
Except does he practice it? He has no theories? Yet to say something isn’t a theory is to assume the total impossiblity of error in doing so?
I mean, the wording above is actually quite subtle – “There is no reason one cannot take a logically sound position with confidence without having to assume the total impossibility of error in doing so.”
Yes, so he says there’s not reason you can’t do that. He’s not actually saying he does it, in saying so, though.
But lets read it charitably, for a moment. What does it mean when he says he simply acts as if he knows?
Does that fire off a belief instinct in others to believe him? Does it fire it off inside himself?
Can you say “Everything I say might be wrong” then go on for six years speaking only as if your right, relying on one disclaimer utterance from years prior? Does this work?
And because everyone else prudently avoided bringing it up…
Is he just having us on? Everyone did read the sharks with lasers bit, didn’t they?
This isn't any method used in the practice of science? Which third parties? The ones of his choosing?
If you ask a thousand people to measure something by using a certain metric and they all report the same result, you probably have an objective metric.
The pornography observation about the first book would also be reported by every single person over a sample of a thousand or more people? This is obviously not the case?