Did the human under discussion have a sudden, unexplained deviation from a previous value system, to one extrmely rare for humans? Or is this a normal human belief? Has the human always held the belief that User:Zvi is attempting to prove invalid?
You are conflating beliefs with values. This is the sort of errror that leads to making incoherent claims that a (terminal) value is irrational.
I may have been imprecise with terminology in that comment, but the query is coherent and involves no such conflation. The referent of “belief” there is “belief about whether one ought to indefinitely extend one’s life through methods like cryopreservation”, which is indeed an expression of values. Your judgment of the merit of my comparison is hasty.
The conflation occurs within the impricision of terminology.
The referent of “belief” there is “belief about whether one ought to indefinitely extend one’s life through methods like cryopreservation”
Does this so called “belief” control anticipated experience or distinguish between coherent configurations of reality as making the belief true or false?
Your judgment of the merit of my comparison is hasty.
Even if the thoughts you were expressing were more virtuous than their expression, the quality of your communication matters.
You appear to have done a simple pattern match for nearby occurrences of “value” and “belief” without checking back to what impact there was, if any, on the merit of the comparison. Please do so before further pressing this sub-issue.
You appear to have done a simple pattern match for nearby occurrences of “value” and “belief” without checking back to what impact there was, if any, on the merit of the comparison.
No. You called a value a “belief”. That was a mistake, and I called you on it. There is not a mistake on my end that you should feel the need to explain with “simple pattern match”.
Then you should have no trouble explaining how the supposed error you detected invalidates the comparison I was making in that comment. Why not try that approach, instead of repeated mention of the general need for precision when distinguishing values and beliefs?
I shall provide the template:
“User:Clippy, you are in error to raise the issue of whether User:Zvi’s father had a sharp, sudden change in values, in response to User:Armok_GoB’s reasoning from a hypothetical in which a clippy had a sharp, sudden change in values. I base this judgment on how, in that comment, you were later imprecise in distinguishing values—“ought” statements—from facts—“is” statements. Your imprecision in that comment undermines your counter-analogy as follows: ____ ”
What would you place in the underscore stream at the end?
I don’t have a problem with your question modified to use the word “value” where that is what you meant, and your mistake is not a valid excuse not to answer it. Your mistake can however lead to other problems as I mentioned when first pointing it out, and even if it doesn’t lead you into making that sort of mistake, it can introduce or reinforce the confusion in people who read it.
You are conflating beliefs with values. This is the sort of errror that leads to making incoherent claims that a (terminal) value is irrational.
I may have been imprecise with terminology in that comment, but the query is coherent and involves no such conflation. The referent of “belief” there is “belief about whether one ought to indefinitely extend one’s life through methods like cryopreservation”, which is indeed an expression of values. Your judgment of the merit of my comparison is hasty.
The conflation occurs within the impricision of terminology.
Does this so called “belief” control anticipated experience or distinguish between coherent configurations of reality as making the belief true or false?
Even if the thoughts you were expressing were more virtuous than their expression, the quality of your communication matters.
You appear to have done a simple pattern match for nearby occurrences of “value” and “belief” without checking back to what impact there was, if any, on the merit of the comparison. Please do so before further pressing this sub-issue.
No. You called a value a “belief”. That was a mistake, and I called you on it. There is not a mistake on my end that you should feel the need to explain with “simple pattern match”.
Then you should have no trouble explaining how the supposed error you detected invalidates the comparison I was making in that comment. Why not try that approach, instead of repeated mention of the general need for precision when distinguishing values and beliefs?
I shall provide the template:
“User:Clippy, you are in error to raise the issue of whether User:Zvi’s father had a sharp, sudden change in values, in response to User:Armok_GoB’s reasoning from a hypothetical in which a clippy had a sharp, sudden change in values. I base this judgment on how, in that comment, you were later imprecise in distinguishing values—“ought” statements—from facts—“is” statements. Your imprecision in that comment undermines your counter-analogy as follows: ____ ”
What would you place in the underscore stream at the end?
I don’t have a problem with your question modified to use the word “value” where that is what you meant, and your mistake is not a valid excuse not to answer it. Your mistake can however lead to other problems as I mentioned when first pointing it out, and even if it doesn’t lead you into making that sort of mistake, it can introduce or reinforce the confusion in people who read it.