cnearing

  • ***
  • 2677 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: How can one provide epistemic justification for <>G?
« Reply #15 on: May 06, 2016, 01:58:10 pm »
You're about halfway there.  Which is better than where you were before, but still not terribly close.
P((A => B), A) = P(A => B) + P(A) - 1

1

ParaclitosLogos

  • ***
  • 4902 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: How can one provide epistemic justification for <>G?
« Reply #16 on: May 06, 2016, 02:09:45 pm »
You're about halfway there.  Which is better than where you were before, but still not terribly close.

Who died and made you judge?

2

cnearing

  • ***
  • 2677 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: How can one provide epistemic justification for <>G?
« Reply #17 on: May 06, 2016, 02:24:10 pm »
So you don't know what a citation is.  Fair enough.
P((A => B), A) = P(A => B) + P(A) - 1

3

ParaclitosLogos

  • ***
  • 4902 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: How can one provide epistemic justification for <>G?
« Reply #18 on: May 06, 2016, 02:30:58 pm »
So you don't know what a citation is.  Fair enough.

So you are really not interested in fruitful conversation, just misstreating others.

ci·ta·tion
sīˈtāSH(ə)n/
noun
1.
a quotation from or reference to a book, paper, or author, especially in a scholarly work.


4

cnearing

  • ***
  • 2677 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: How can one provide epistemic justification for <>G?
« Reply #19 on: May 06, 2016, 02:47:34 pm »
Typically, a citation requires that one actually pick out the portion of their writing that comes from or is a reference to some other work.  Not simply listing a list of alleged maybe sort of related texts.

And you don't really have any room to talk.  I am engaging at, well, actually, a more substantive level that you are.
P((A => B), A) = P(A => B) + P(A) - 1

5

ParaclitosLogos

  • ***
  • 4902 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: How can one provide epistemic justification for <>G?
« Reply #20 on: May 06, 2016, 02:59:07 pm »
Typically, a citation requires that one actually pick out the portion of their writing that comes from or is a reference to some other work.  Not simply listing a list of alleged maybe sort of related texts.

And you don't really have any room to talk.  I am engaging at, well, actually, a more substantive level that you are.

I am doing other things while posting. And I would be more than happy to carry a long conversation, bring in citations, but, that usually depends on the treatment I receive,there is so much one can explain in writing, at one go, and, I am always interested in furthering my explanations, except when I perceive bad attitude and condecension from the start.  You could have only said, in the beginning I don´t understand, could you expand on what you mean by this or that other point.


So far, I have been giving the explanations and you have been the one challenging explanations, for the most part, aside from this, you have been mostly making assertions, with out even trying to justify them.


You ask questions and then give yourself the answers,  and just uncharitably attack others, with out even trying to come to an understanding.

« Last Edit: May 06, 2016, 03:01:52 pm by ontologicalme »

6

cnearing

  • ***
  • 2677 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: How can one provide epistemic justification for <>G?
« Reply #21 on: May 06, 2016, 03:08:09 pm »
You don't have to give citations, but don't say you have given citations when you haven't.  Every accusation you level at me is true of yourself.  The reverse, however, is not true.
P((A => B), A) = P(A => B) + P(A) - 1

7

cnearing

  • ***
  • 2677 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: How can one provide epistemic justification for <>G?
« Reply #22 on: May 06, 2016, 03:10:48 pm »
Anyway.  I didn't start the thread to be subjected to personal attacks, and though I have decided to respond politely rather than simply report you, I think I am donr talking to you unless you decide to offer something substantive along with an apology for your many unwarranted, unprovoked personal attacks.
P((A => B), A) = P(A => B) + P(A) - 1

8

ParaclitosLogos

  • ***
  • 4902 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: How can one provide epistemic justification for <>G?
« Reply #23 on: May 06, 2016, 03:17:59 pm »
Anyway.  I didn't start the thread to be subjected to personal attacks, and though I have decided to respond politely rather than simply report you, I think I am donr talking to you unless you decide to offer something substantive along with an apology for your many unwarranted, unprovoked personal attacks.

I´m happy if we don´t ever talk to one another, again. Have a great life.

9

cnearing

  • ***
  • 2677 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: How can one provide epistemic justification for <>G?
« Reply #24 on: May 06, 2016, 03:41:25 pm »
Take care.
P((A => B), A) = P(A => B) + P(A) - 1

10

ParaclitosLogos

  • ***
  • 4902 Posts
    • View Profile