Quote:
Originally Posted by dereds
Here he talks both of drawing the conclusion and the level of conviction held in it once drawn.
I also think MB ignores NR's qualification of his belief sufficiently that anything less than surrendering them will leave MB dissatisfied given how MB considers the evidence available to NR.
MB's characterization of NR's position is also very flawed. In a part of a post that he snipped above:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyboosh
Once again you're using absolute terms like 'dismiss' and 'throw away' and no one but you is doing that, I'm certainly not. There's a spectrum of how much we trust things isn't there, with 'absolute trust' at one end and' 'don't trust at all' at the other. Your trust in your personal experiences seems to be pegged out on 'absolute trust'...
Oh, the irony... Nobody is using absolute terms but you, but I'm going to characterize your beliefs as being absolute trust. (And then he goes on again about cognitive biases which doesn't really do anything for him, and really hasn't done anything for him throughout the thread.)
MB is basically trying to play both sides of the fence. If NR doesn't let go of his beliefs then he has too much trust in his personal experiences. But he's not asking him to throw away those beliefs, he just wants him to be more circumspect about them. But that circumspection could only be evidenced by doubting his personal experiences enough that he does not hold those beliefs anymore.
It's the same thing as the impossible standard he put forth for believing anything (but don't tell him that he doesn't even hold to that standard himself -- that's just a tu quoque).