The examples that people have given are real ones. Yours are fictional. It’s easy to make up stories of how the world would look, conditional upon any proposition whatever being true. (V cerqvpg gung ng yrnfg bar ernqre jvyy vafgnagyl erfcbaq gb guvf pynvz ol znxvat hc n fgbel va juvpu vg vf snyfr.) In this light, the “least convenient possible world” for one’s interlocutors is the most convenient possible for oneself, the one in which the point at issue is imagined to be true.
We assume it’s true, we don’t have any evidence. I could tell stories about my personal experience but you’d have no way to check them. At least saying upfront that it’s a thought experiment is keeping the debate ground neutral and allows peoples reasoning to do the work instead of their emotions. And no I would never make up a story to defend my argument, the fact that you would assume your interlocutor is being a liar without any evidence to back that up is really hampering my desire to debate you.
You made up six stories here. I was not imputing any dishonesty, only pointing out that they are fiction.
OTOH, you just said of the other stories presented here that “we don’t have any evidence”. The stories I was referring to are jimmy’s story of preventing swelling in an injured joint, and his account of Conor McGregor. These stories purport to be of real things that happened. To say that his account is no evidence of that looks very like what you took me to be doing.
I was referring to that block of text that you have encoded, I decoded it and there you state the assumption that your interlocutor will lie. And no I am assuming they are true which is why I said “we assume it’s true”. I would also keep anecdotal evidence to a minimum in this type of discussion because I would want my interlocutor to be able to check every step of my reasoning. And anecdotal evidence for a positive occurrence of phenomenon does not discount the existence of a negative occurrence. I say there exists such a thing as X and the counterargument is but this one time there was Y. Do you have any arguments as to why my counterarguments or something in a similar vein couldn’t happend?
[EDIT] Richard says he meant the encoded text to only mean that the reader thinks up, but doesn’t present the false story. This is a plausible interpretation of the text and since I can’t know which one was meant I will assume it was the more charitable one and retract these comments.
The examples that people have given are real ones. Yours are fictional. It’s easy to make up stories of how the world would look, conditional upon any proposition whatever being true. (V cerqvpg gung ng yrnfg bar ernqre jvyy vafgnagyl erfcbaq gb guvf pynvz ol znxvat hc n fgbel va juvpu vg vf snyfr.) In this light, the “least convenient possible world” for one’s interlocutors is the most convenient possible for oneself, the one in which the point at issue is imagined to be true.
We assume it’s true, we don’t have any evidence. I could tell stories about my personal experience but you’d have no way to check them. At least saying upfront that it’s a thought experiment is keeping the debate ground neutral and allows peoples reasoning to do the work instead of their emotions. And no I would never make up a story to defend my argument, the fact that you would assume your interlocutor is being a liar without any evidence to back that up is really hampering my desire to debate you.
You made up six stories here. I was not imputing any dishonesty, only pointing out that they are fiction.
OTOH, you just said of the other stories presented here that “we don’t have any evidence”. The stories I was referring to are jimmy’s story of preventing swelling in an injured joint, and his account of Conor McGregor. These stories purport to be of real things that happened. To say that his account is no evidence of that looks very like what you took me to be doing.
I was referring to that block of text that you have encoded, I decoded it and there you state the assumption that your interlocutor will lie. And no I am assuming they are true which is why I said “we assume it’s true”. I would also keep anecdotal evidence to a minimum in this type of discussion because I would want my interlocutor to be able to check every step of my reasoning. And anecdotal evidence for a positive occurrence of phenomenon does not discount the existence of a negative occurrence. I say there exists such a thing as X and the counterargument is but this one time there was Y. Do you have any arguments as to why my counterarguments or something in a similar vein couldn’t happend?
[EDIT] Richard says he meant the encoded text to only mean that the reader thinks up, but doesn’t present the false story. This is a plausible interpretation of the text and since I can’t know which one was meant I will assume it was the more charitable one and retract these comments.
As before, I was not imputing any dishonesty to the hypothetical reader reflexively thinking up a hypothetical counterexample to a generalisation.