You mean that if you found that chess bored you, and you dislike it, you would continue to play it? Don't you continue to play chess because it is true that you like to play chess? And, by the way, are you ever interested at all in whether your opponent has made a legal or an illegal move, or are you indifferent to that too?

Yes, I do things for different reasons. I study chess, not necessarily because I enjoy it, but maybe to meet people, to understand the underlying message of the game, to pass time, etc. There are many reasons I do things.

Rich

So, I suppose you think that it is true that you will meet people, that there is an underlying message of the game, and that it is true that you will pass time playing chess. What a lot of things you believe are true! I since you know that you have passed time playing chess, why, you actually know that too. I bet you know a lot of other things too. You know how to play chess. You know that one bishop moves only on the white colored squares, and the other on the squares of the other color. You know that a king with knight alone cannot force made, but you also know that a bishop and knight with king can force mate. What a lot of things you know are true. And, I certainly hope you impose that knowledge on your opponent by winning games. Don't you?

Hi,

I suppose you can define True as anything I am currently thinking or doing. That would be different. I would call it Thought though.

None of these things that you may call True, I deem true. I have skills and I know some of the many ways to win at chess but not all. It is all very transient and fluid. It is my Consciousness wandering through the universe. If you want to call this True, then that is fine with me.

True is beginning to sound like anything I do. Well .. that would be a different approach to defining Truth. Then Not True would be anything I don't do. But, these Truths would only be True for me. OK. I can buy that.

Rich

No. As Aristotle pointed out, to say of what is that it is, is to say what is true. And since you play chess, to say that you play chess is to say what is true. But to say (for instance) that you are an astronaut is to say what is false. That you do not "deem" it true that you play chess I find peculiar, since you have already told me that you play chess, and although you might have lied when you told me you played chess, of course, I don't think you did. So, if you told me the truth when you told me you played chess, then it must be true that you play chess, and I cannot but suppose that you know you play chess is true. So, not only it is a truth that you play chess, but you know it is a truth. Isn't that true?

So, if I were to say that I am flying, it is so?

Aristotle was cool, and for his time he may have been impressive. But consciousness has evolved, and I have trouble being impressed by him. However, I think Heraclitus rocks!

Rich

If you were to say that you were flying, and if you were flying, then of course, what you said, that you were flying, would be true. But if you were not flying, then if you said you were flying, then what you said would be false. As Aristotle said, if what you say is (the case) is (the case) then what you said was true; but if what you said (is the case) is not (the case) then what you said was false.

One of the things that Heraclitus said (I believe) is that you cannot step into the same river twice. But he was wrong. You can (indeed) step into the same river twice, but you cannot step into the same water (of the river) twice. I can step into the Hudson river as many times as I like, but, since the water of the Hudson river is always flowing, I cannot step into the same water twice. So Heraclitus was wrong (said what was false) since he failed to distinguish between the river and the water that flows in the river.

OK. I really believe I am flying. Now, you and others may disagree. You may even send me to the looney bin. But I still believe I am flying. You say I am lying, and I say I am not. I am really, really flying. I say it and it is so. But, of course, you and others can disagree. No one said you cannot.



Well, you say Heraclitus is wrong and I say he was right. So?

Rich

Now I may believe very strongly that vaccinations are harmful to me personally. Most of the population may disagree. Indeed, a vaccination may kill me. So which is true?

A statement like "a vaccination may kill me" is a true statement. It may. But if we're going to make statements about unlikely but possible things, then we're hardly making a statement about truth. I may get eaten by a lion. I may get hit by a low flying plane. I may get trampled by a reindeer. But the probabilities are low enough that I'm not going to avoid zoos for fear of being eaten by lions. Truth doesn't matter here -- only a risk-benefit calculus.

So, you seem to be wrong. Because as you see, Heraclitus did not distinguish between the water in the river, and the river. Had he done so, he would have said you cannot step into the same water twice, but not, you cannot step into the same river twice. Of course, the fact (which is, of course true) that you say one thing and I say something that is inconsistent with what you say, does not matter. What matters is whether what you say is true, or whether what I say is true.

As for the flying; of course what you believe you believe it true, otherwise you would not believe it. Who would dispute that? But that is not the issue. The issue is whether what you believe is, in fact true. So no one disputes that you believe you are flying, but what is disputed is that you are flying. That what you believe is true is, in fact, true.

There is a difference between whether it is true that you believe p is true, and whether what you believe, namely p, is true. I don't think you are making that distinction.

A statement like "a vaccination may kill me" is a true statement. It may. But if we're going to make statements about unlikely but possible things, then we're hardly making a statement about truth. I may get eaten by a lion. I may get hit by a low flying plane. I may get trampled by a reindeer. But the probabilities are low enough that I'm not going to avoid zoos for fear of being eaten by lions. Truth doesn't matter here -- only a risk-benefit calculus.

Well, for it to be true that a vaccination may kill me, there has to be some evidence that there is some chance that it is true, and not just a bare possibility. To say that it is just a bare possibility with no evidence to support it, we would say that a vaccination might kill me, and all that would mean is that it is not impossible that a vaccination could kill me. A very weak claim, indeed. And we do have reason to think it may, and not just that it might, kill me, since we know that vaccinations have killed people before because of adverse reactions their bodies has to them.

Hi,

No one knows what Heraclitus said. Some write that they knew. Others translate that they know. I may be right or wrong and you might be right or wrong. Heraclitus would have to decide. But, then again, he might misinterpret what I am saying, and then he would be wrong and I would be right. Does it matter? I guess, if that is how people like spending their time - i.e. trying to be right.

As far as the distinction goes. Who is going to decide whether or not I am flying. You? I don't even know you. Why should I trust you? I'm comfortable with my own understanding of my situation. If you, and a million other people want to decide something together in a consensual manner, that is OK by me. I suppose you can try to force me to believe what you believe, but it still wouldn't make me trust you.

As I say. Go ahead and have all the truths you want. It is of no mind to me. Make yourself God if you want. You can be whatever you want and believe what you want. I just reserve the right to disagree.

Rich

---------- Post added at 08:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:10 PM ----------



Hi,

Sounds good to me. I don't seek the truth. I just do risk-benefit calculus. Great. I can live with that.

Rich

---------- Post added at 08:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:10 PM ----------



Hi,

Yep, that is how I approach all medicine, i.e., it might kill me. And when the evidence comes in, as often it does in long-term studies, then I say ah-ha, it might kill me. Very cool, don't you think?

Rich

I might agree, if I understood it.

Trust me. It was an incredible thought.

Rich

That is the right word, "incredible". But you really ought to distinguish between the fact that something might happen, but we have good reason to think it won't happen (or will happen) and that something might happen, but we have no reason to think it will happen (nor won't happen). It is an important difference.

Hi,

Fine with me. As long as you can distinguish in your way and I can distinguish in my way. I really, really don't want you to make decisions for me on what might or might not happen.

Rich

Well, for it to be true that a vaccination may kill me, there has to be some evidence that there is some chance that it is true, and not just a bare possibility.

And we do have reason to think it may, and not just that it might, kill me, since we know that vaccinations have killed people before because of adverse reactions their bodies has to them.

Anything might (or might not happen). But not everything is equally likely to happen. But, as usual, you knew that, so I am not telling you anything you did not know. It is only that I am reminding you of something you did know, but in the confusion of an ideology that you have latched on to, you have forgotten.

Hi,

Remarkable.

"The highest as the lowest form of criticism is a mode of autobiography."

Oscar Wilde, Preface to "Dorian Gray"

Rich

Well, the probability is extremely low, even with the highest risk vaccines (like Japanese encephalitis vaccine or the live polio vaccine), but people HAVE died from adverse effects of vaccines so the possibility exists. I'm as big a proponent of vaccination as you'll find, but if someone asked me as a specialist in the area if it's possible that a patient might die from a vaccine, I can't legitimately say no, it's impossible.

There's no quantitative difference between "may" and "might". They both communicate the same thing -- that there is a possibility of death.

I disagree with your feeling that we can't surmise or suppose that possibility. A lot of drug recalls happen because in the pre-clinical FDA approval process there simply aren't the numbers to identify 1 in a million events. Whenever you're sticking a needle in someone's skin, there's a chance of a life-threatening soft-tissue infection. Whenever you're introducing foreign antigen, there is a chance of an idiosyncratic hypersensitivity reaction.

If someone asked me in clinic if they may die from a vaccine I'm about to give them, I would NOT outright say "No, you will not" or "Yes, you might". I'd tell them that the odds of death are exceptionally small, and if they suffer anything from the vaccine it's most likely to be this and that common side effect (pain and redness at the injection site, low grade fever, etc).

Well, it seems to me that the bare possibility of death is not the same thing as the probability (or the improbability) of death. Otherwise, why would we have the two concepts, possibility, and probability (improbability). What is possible might happen. But what is probable, may happen.

So if someone asks you if he might die of the vaccination, it seems to me that it would also be proper to say that it is possible but improbable or unlikely.

In fact, I suggest that we disagree very little on this, if at all.