I was going to point out how you misrepresented my arguments in every one of your retorts, but quite frankly, this argument over a funny text meme has already gone too far and I have better things to do. However, I would like to point out more clearly than last time that to assume that the sender is a man and the receiver is a straight woman is the view heteronormative worldview. This could easily be read as a lesbian trying to get with a woman they didn’t know was straight, a man trying to get with another man who is gay, or any other perceivable combination of queer individuals where one member has a boyfriend.
I will admit that I also used the flawed premise in one of my arguments, and I was being a bit of a pedant originally, but honestly your arguments have been less than insightful and that one detail kinda ticked me off.
when faced with competing explanations for the same phenomenon, the simplest is likely the correct one.
when faced with competing explanations [obvious politeness vs subtextual passive aggression] for the same phenomenon [choice of wording for a rejection text], the simplest [the one that doesn’t involve the extra step of assuming malicious intent] is likely the correct one.
Please tell me why this is an incorrect usage of occam’s razor.
Occam’s razor shouldn’t be used as a rhetorical tool. An important requirement of using the razor is to have two hypotheses of equal possibility. Let’s say you are deciding whether to worship the flying spaghetti and practicing scientology. While they both have the same amount of proof, none. This seems like a good use for Occam’s razor, but it isn’t. You can’t assume that the simpler answer, the flying spaghetti monster, is correct because they are, by the premise of using the razor, equally plausible.
Even without this in mind, it makes no sense to choose the simper hypothesis. If you had no knowledge or data of atoms, so both earlier models and current models should f the atom seem equally possible. Occam’s razor claims that the simpler earlier models are true, but we now know the more complex current models are truer. The world is complicated, too complicated to assume simple answers
Instead, Occam’s razor is used in science to decide which hypothesis to test first. You choose the simpler hypothesis, because it is easier to prove. For example, if I had recently invented a machine that can answer any yea or no questions truthfully, the flying spaghetti monster theorum would be easier to test, so you should test that first. It is a time management tool
this argument over a funny text meme has already gone too far and I have better things to do
My thoughts exactly. I meant it when I said this feels really stupid to be arguing over and I was all ready myself to say that I’m done here.
honestly your arguments have been less than insightful
Wow, nail on the head. That’s exactly what I’m feeling about your input as well.
Honestly, if your hook in this was just that I assumed the genders wrong in a situation that plays out similarly regardless of the genders at work, you’re being pedantic.
I mean, given that a gay or non-binary person might actually take the news that the other person is open to a friendship better than a typical straight guy, your point is self defeating. You’re literally just mad that I said “her” and “him”.
Inclusivity matters. I get it. I’m not the kind of person who adheres to heteronormativity. But forcing inclusivity in a situation where it doesn’t make a difference to give validity to an opinion that might go against the grain is just tedious and uncalled for.
I was going to point out how you misrepresented my arguments in every one of your retorts, but quite frankly, this argument over a funny text meme has already gone too far and I have better things to do. However, I would like to point out more clearly than last time that to assume that the sender is a man and the receiver is a straight woman is the view heteronormative worldview. This could easily be read as a lesbian trying to get with a woman they didn’t know was straight, a man trying to get with another man who is gay, or any other perceivable combination of queer individuals where one member has a boyfriend.
I will admit that I also used the flawed premise in one of my arguments, and I was being a bit of a pedant originally, but honestly your arguments have been less than insightful and that one detail kinda ticked me off.
Also, you used occams razor wrong.
Actually, one last thing:
when faced with competing explanations [obvious politeness vs subtextual passive aggression] for the same phenomenon [choice of wording for a rejection text], the simplest [the one that doesn’t involve the extra step of assuming malicious intent] is likely the correct one.
Please tell me why this is an incorrect usage of occam’s razor.
Occam’s razor shouldn’t be used as a rhetorical tool. An important requirement of using the razor is to have two hypotheses of equal possibility. Let’s say you are deciding whether to worship the flying spaghetti and practicing scientology. While they both have the same amount of proof, none. This seems like a good use for Occam’s razor, but it isn’t. You can’t assume that the simpler answer, the flying spaghetti monster, is correct because they are, by the premise of using the razor, equally plausible.
Even without this in mind, it makes no sense to choose the simper hypothesis. If you had no knowledge or data of atoms, so both earlier models and current models should f the atom seem equally possible. Occam’s razor claims that the simpler earlier models are true, but we now know the more complex current models are truer. The world is complicated, too complicated to assume simple answers
Instead, Occam’s razor is used in science to decide which hypothesis to test first. You choose the simpler hypothesis, because it is easier to prove. For example, if I had recently invented a machine that can answer any yea or no questions truthfully, the flying spaghetti monster theorum would be easier to test, so you should test that first. It is a time management tool
My thoughts exactly. I meant it when I said this feels really stupid to be arguing over and I was all ready myself to say that I’m done here.
Wow, nail on the head. That’s exactly what I’m feeling about your input as well.
Honestly, if your hook in this was just that I assumed the genders wrong in a situation that plays out similarly regardless of the genders at work, you’re being pedantic.
I mean, given that a gay or non-binary person might actually take the news that the other person is open to a friendship better than a typical straight guy, your point is self defeating. You’re literally just mad that I said “her” and “him”.
Inclusivity matters. I get it. I’m not the kind of person who adheres to heteronormativity. But forcing inclusivity in a situation where it doesn’t make a difference to give validity to an opinion that might go against the grain is just tedious and uncalled for.
Later.