Probably. The same sentiment could be expressed as something like this:
The map is not the territory; if you understood how Bayesian updating works, you would know that facts and opinions are qualitatively the same.
This phrasing is still a bit condescending, but a). it gives an actual link for me to read an educate my ignorant self, and b). it makes the speaker sound merely like a stuck-up long-timer, instead of a creepy phyg-ist.
Merely telling people that they aren’t worthy is not very educational; it’s much better to tell them why you think they aren’t worthy, which is where the links come in.
What I would have said about the phrasing is that it is wrong.
Sure, but I have no problem with people being wrong, that’s what updating is for :-)
Merely telling people that they aren’t worthy is not very educational; it’s much better to tell them why you think they aren’t worthy, which is where the links come in.
Huh? This was your example, one you advocated and one that includes a link. I essentially agreed with one of your points—your retort seems odd.
Sure, but I have no problem with people being wrong, that’s what updating is for :-)
Huh again? You seemed to have missed a level of abstraction.
Specifically ‘the way of’. Would you have the same objection with ‘and understand how bayesian updating works’? (Objection to presumptuousness aside.)
Probably. The same sentiment could be expressed as something like this:
This phrasing is still a bit condescending, but a). it gives an actual link for me to read an educate my ignorant self, and b). it makes the speaker sound merely like a stuck-up long-timer, instead of a creepy phyg-ist.
Educating people is like that!
What I would have said about the phrasing is that it is wrong.
Merely telling people that they aren’t worthy is not very educational; it’s much better to tell them why you think they aren’t worthy, which is where the links come in.
Sure, but I have no problem with people being wrong, that’s what updating is for :-)
Huh? This was your example, one you advocated and one that includes a link. I essentially agreed with one of your points—your retort seems odd.
Huh again? You seemed to have missed a level of abstraction.