> So, assuming you've read that too, the answer to your question is: everything I say (and I do mean everything, including what I am saying right now) is a hypothesis.
See, was that so hard?
Is there some reason you do not adopt a more sophisticated approach? I mean, you seem smart enough, and you certainly have the self-confidence.
> I will say this though: I'm pretty sure you are confusing motte-and-bailey on the one hand, and the appropriate levels of precision for different social contexts on the other.
Would you like to try proving out your hypothesis while I shoot holes in it, like one shoots fish in a barrel?
In this case I would start here:
"pretty sure"
"you"
"and the appropriate levels of precision for different social contexts"
"the"
"appropriate"
Presumably you can see the vast complexity that underlies these symbols (which we throw around daily as if they are simple trivialities), if you put some effort into it?
Maybe that's the thing though: if one puts little effort in, discerning reality is easy, whereas if one puts effort in, it becomes much harder. This is only one of the many ways in which reality is fundamentally paradoxical, and also funny (it is funny to watch people think they are thinking about it....which they are, but not in the way they think they are....which is funny. Funny upon funny...the gateway to all understanding? Now that would be funny!).
> Is there some reason you do not adopt a more sophisticated approach?
Like what?
> you seem smart enough
Thank you.
> Presumably you can see the vast complexity that underlies these symbols
Yep. But symbols are the only tools available here, so I have no choice but to use them despite their limitations.
> Maybe that's the thing though: if one puts little effort in, discerning reality is easy
I think you underestimate the effort I've put in. I've already smacked you down once for failing to do your homework. Please don't make me do it again, I really take no joy in it.
- explicitly revealing that your hypotheses stated in the form of facts are actually hypotheses
- wondering if your hypotheses are true
> But symbols are the only tools available here, so I have no choice but to use them despite their limitations.
There is more than one way to use symbols. For example, one can use them in a deceptive, misinformative manner, or one can use them in the opposite way.
> I've already smacked you down once for failing to do your homework. Please don't make me do it again, I really take no joy in it.
I offered you a challenge explicitly above, I recommend you take me up on it.
See, was that so hard?
Is there some reason you do not adopt a more sophisticated approach? I mean, you seem smart enough, and you certainly have the self-confidence.
> I will say this though: I'm pretty sure you are confusing motte-and-bailey on the one hand, and the appropriate levels of precision for different social contexts on the other.
Would you like to try proving out your hypothesis while I shoot holes in it, like one shoots fish in a barrel?
In this case I would start here:
"pretty sure"
"you"
"and the appropriate levels of precision for different social contexts"
"the"
"appropriate"
Presumably you can see the vast complexity that underlies these symbols (which we throw around daily as if they are simple trivialities), if you put some effort into it?
Maybe that's the thing though: if one puts little effort in, discerning reality is easy, whereas if one puts effort in, it becomes much harder. This is only one of the many ways in which reality is fundamentally paradoxical, and also funny (it is funny to watch people think they are thinking about it....which they are, but not in the way they think they are....which is funny. Funny upon funny...the gateway to all understanding? Now that would be funny!).