|
|
#11 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 13
|
Exactly one of my points Izzy, thanks for clearing that up.
Devonin, "So it sounds like, in fact, the child in your example who cannot do this -does- actually have a serious disability. Understanding the "deep logic" behind this (which the child probably doesn't anyway) in no way mitigates the fact that this is a skill that everyone needs to have to function properly in society." -This is somewhat missing the point, the child is purely for example and in no way does the child exist in the real world. The idea isn't that the child understands the logic, (the child actually doesn't understand, and yes has a problem) the child is only to be understood to have a different perception of the world, it isn't supposed to be an actual being. Perhaps the illustration would make more sense to you if the creature being interviewed was from another world and had an entirely different set of terms, units, and ways to measure the universe. That is beside the point however. I already said I didn't present the idea perfectly and I was open for suggestions so thank you. Also Devonin, I mentioned at the beginning of my post that I wouldn't be surprised by a lack of surprise among readers. You already understand the idea I'm trying to explain. I've met enough of who you refer to as "stupid" people to know that at least from what I have observed, it is a problem in society. You also keep forgetting that I already said that probably "the most accurately someone could predict an event is about 99%." I meant that to be a very high percentage, because "uncertainty should be understood as something that applies to all things but only to a somewhat limited degree." I'd like to clarify also that it is much higher in different situations and much lower in others. The problems arise when we fail to recognize the uncertainty. |
|
|
|
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|