Hey, Peeps, a Change of Plans for Teh Bloggy Roll

I’ve hit upon a better idea than what I discussed in (This Post, Click Me), and decided to keep the inactive blog links active onsite, putting them together with the archived sites, since in a lot of cases, they overlap.

I’ve created a new blog list for these sites just below the main list, and will not be using the standard blogroll widget as originally planned, instead using the feeds widgets as per the main site list, since I find them more versatile for my evil purposes…

Heh Heh Heh…

I intend to modify the URLs in each link to allow opening a new window or tab when they are clicked on, to make navigation between sites more convenient.

I’m a little (no, a lot!) clueless on the proper coding of the URLs to do this, so I’m open to any helpful input on that.

I won’t be posting updates on the site tomorrow, but working on the links to other sites, including a lot of new ones, and some old favorites relinked to, now that I’ve cleaned out my browser bookmarks of any sites that no longer seem to exist.

When and if any inactive site ever becomes active again, I’ll move it up to the main list, of course.

Thanks for your patience in this, and I’m always open to suggestions from you all on how to improve this site, evolving in an almost Darwinian fashion as it is.

TED – Derek Sivers: Weird, or just different?

How To Argue: The Reductio Ad Absurdum – Invalid & Valid

Let’s suppose that there are two men engaged in an argument, we’ll call them Mr. A and Mr. B.

They’re engaged in a rather spirited discussion on psi-phenomena, and Mr. A argues that psi is unlikely to exist because truly compelling evidence, in the form of successful replications of psi, regardless of the beliefs or level of enthusiasm of those attempting the replication of the initial studies, does not currently exist.

Note that he is not saying he doesn’t think it’s real because he hasn’t personally experienced it nor seen concrete, direct evidence of its existence, but that despite the immense volume of evidence in the literature, it just isn’t very convincing by reasonable scientific standards, and so one should remain skeptical for the time being.

Nor is he arguing that it’s impossible, only unlikely to exist until convincing evidence under reasonable conditions by reasonably objective research workers indicates otherwise.

In his rebuttal, Mr. B argues that Mr. A, in thinking that psi probably isn’t real, must also believe that dark energy and dark matter must not exist, because Mr. A hasn’t seen them either, and that he must therefore believe that 90% of the universe must not exist.

But wait…

Mr. A said nothing about needing to see psi himself, only that convincing evidence obtained under adequate conditions by non-believers in psi is not there, not yet, saying nothing at all about the evidence needed to establish dark matter or dark energy, both of which have different evidential requirements than psi does, for which almost the entire body of data consists of statistical quirks, convincing or not.

Mr. A’s argument has, as can be seen, been misrepresented, and in such a way as to carry it to an absurd conclusion, the claim that by his own reasoning, most of the universe doesn’t exist.

That last was an example of a fallacious Reductio ad absurdum, and of course there was probably much more said than simply the above. But Mr. B’s argument was fallacious because it led to an absurd conclusion without using the actual chain of reasoning of Mr. A’s argument, by misrepresenting that argument as a straw person.

Later, Mr. A and Mr. B get into a discussion of the nature of reality, in which Mr. B, not liking the direction of the argument, responds to what he feels are the overly absolutist statements of his opponent, in exasperation saying in a rather postmodern fashion, “Reality is nothing!”

There are several ways that this can be interpreted, but in this case, a clarification is not offered, and Mr. A cannot read minds nor thinks at the time to ask for a clarification, so the most likely interpretation, that B is claiming reality doesn’t exist, will have to do.

What does this mean? Can we carry this claim to it’s ultimate conclusion without merely misrepresenting it?

Let’s see…

What is reality? And I don’t mean what is its ultimate nature in fact, but what is the meaning of the word? How is it used?

Reality, by definition, is that which can truly be said to exist, no matter it’s nature or other properties:

a=a: reality is real.

To be real, this quality of existing is essential, whether the thing existing is directly observable or not. If something doesn’t exist, then it’s not part of reality, and if it’s not even imagined, it’s not fantasy either.

What is everything that is real?

We call it the Universe, or the Cosmos, take your pick, though myself, I’m partial to the latter, though for this discussion I’ll use “universe” for the totality of existence.

To say that reality is nothing, in this context implies that the universe doesn’t exist, 100% of it, not just 90% in the straw person argument above, since the universe is everything, with or without any supplementation to it by anything allegedly supernatural.

But if the universe is everything that exists, and everything currently within and originating within the universe, by definition existing as part of its totality, and therefore part of all reality…

Hmmm… I smell something funny about this, don’t you?..

If the ‘reality does not exist’ interpretation holds and the claim were true, then the claim could never be made, since neither of the two persons would even exist themselves in order to have their argument.

But if Mr. B exists to make his argument to Mr. A, and Mr. A exists to hear the argument, then the claim, assuming this interpretation, is simply, obviously, and demonstrably false.

Clearly this is an unacceptable conclusion, at least until such time as Mr. B offers a clarification of his statement that requires a different interpretation of what he said, we must assume what we did know and thus consider this a valid Reductio ad absurdum.

But personal debates among argumentative friends are often messy, impromptu, with little if any ‘rehearsal’ or ‘practice’ beforehand, and unless both are skilled arguers, it is unlikely that normative standards or ideals will reasonably be met without time and practice.

This is just one of the hazards of personal arguments, but it’s something that can be improved if done systematically and with time, skillfully and instinctively, but the rewards of rich and confident testing of our knowledge by argumentation far outstrip any annoyance that may result in the beginning.

TED – Dave Meslin: The antidote to apathy

My Fondest Regret…

This post is going to be wildly off-topic, ridiculously sentimental, and may ramble a bit, so if you wish to read further, please bear with me. It is an open letter to someone I haven’t seen in years and haven’t tried to out of respect for her marital status and any wishes she may have pertaining to this.

Nonetheless, it’s something I simply must get off my chest for reasons that may or may not be expressed here. Here goes…

It’s been since the summer of 1995 when I last met you with your then fiance, whose name I hadn’t the courage to ask, but as I told the two of you then, he’s a lucky guy.

I don’t know if the two of you are still married, and I don’t have to. Like then, as now, I wish you both good health and good fortune wherever you are and regardless of anything happening since our last meeting then.

But though I try to fool myself, and convince myself that I’m past you, your face, your name, your voice…in some way or fashion, every day since that last meeting, you intrude upon my thoughts, and sometimes my dreams.

But always in a good way, nothing that brings me pain, only satisfaction of a good friendship when a messed-up-in-the-head, insecure, clueless nerd like me first met you in high-school, and the way you’ve shaped my views of love and humanity ever since, even though I’ve never dated you, and didn’t ask you out when you offered me the chance.

When you told me to my face that you loved me.

The past is dead, gone forever, but my memories of you last as long as my brain remains operational, as long as a shred of reason and memory lasts. We were friends, and when by chance our paths cross again, if they do, I hope that we remain friends as we parted.

You are one reason I’m a skeptic, but a good one, one that brings joy and meaning to it, not sadness or anger. You’ve NEVER done me wrong.

There are certain ways I will no longer think of you, certain ways that I cannot think of you, for I’m not as hormone-addled as I was in my teens, and there are ways in which I’ve moved beyond that, but the profound way you’ve positively affected my life, despite the fact that what might have been never truly was (my greatest error), and missteps like my last disastrously toxic relationship in 2009 with that woman, with whom my vaunted skepticism was sorely lacking when it was needed, you were and still are the biggest influence on my life, and that I won’t forget, as long as I draw breath.

Thank you.

You even once called me a genius to my face, a term I don’t think that I really merit, that I’ve really earned, but you said it in complete sincerity, in that tone of voice you have when speaking in total honesty. From some, it sounds empty, but from you it was a compliment of the highest order.

Thank you also for that, but it is you who were and no doubt are the genius, not me.

I’m out of your life, as it should be. With a husband and family to care for, and to be cared for by, you don’t need peeps like me interposing themselves intentionally or not. Live your own life, grow, learn, feel joy in every sunrise, and don’t worry about me. That too is how it should be. I won’t seek you out, but if we meet again, I won’t avoid you, and be well, Lilia, be happy, you’ve deeply influenced my taste in and views of women…

You are and always will be my fondest regret.

As I was when we were both taking Latin together in high-school,

Troianus sum.