tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6874629230734578214.post1047461062079727425..comments2020-01-24T14:58:54.318-08:00Comments on Breakfast Impossible: UPB FAQ 0.1Davehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17330240621500931648noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6874629230734578214.post-23956452706375057772013-07-18T17:38:41.984-07:002013-07-18T17:38:41.984-07:00"I am still finding value at FDR, and have no..."I am still finding value at FDR, and have not given up on understanding UPB."<br /><br />I wanted to make it clear that I'm not saying you can't get any value from Stefan or that you should leave if you don't want to.<br /><br />I just want to point out that Stefan presumes he has much stronger abilities in clear logical thinking than he actually has.<br /><br />He also uses stereotypes about psychology to come to hasty conclusions about people's motives. While that sometimes gives an accurate conclusion, it frequently fails.<br /><br />And then he then trains others in these ways of thinking. Not everyone who listens to him goes for that, but some do.Mr. Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00467771245906558199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6874629230734578214.post-82595008050071410962013-07-18T17:22:29.193-07:002013-07-18T17:22:29.193-07:00The confusion comes from Stefan's confusion. H...The confusion comes from Stefan's confusion. Here's an example.<br /><br />Take a look at Appendix D of the "UPB" book, where the other person is quite rightly annoyed at Stefan.<br /><br />Stefan frequently portrays himself as valuing logic and corrections. He portrays himself as holding that value independent of other people's demands.<br /><br />You'd probably rationally expect him to welcome corrections.<br /><br />You'd probably think it odd if you took him at his word, offered him some corrections, and were presented with the repeated insinuation that you're <i>irrationally</i> expecting him to value logic and corrections.<br /><br />You'll note that the other person in the interaction never actually does what Stefan insinuates. The person is repeatedly clear that Stefan is not objectively required to do anything. The person merely repeatedly offers what Stefan claimed to value, which is perfectly logically consistent with their belief that people, like Stefan, can have personal preferences for logic.<br /><br />The condescending rhetorical question about why Stefan should let someone else's preferences override his preferences directly contradicts his repeated claims that his preferences <i>already match</i> the other person's. It's completely bizarre to presume that the other person is trying to override your preferences in order to change them to what they already supposedly are.<br /><br />And this behavior is what Stefan claims that literally <b><i>every</i></b> debate he's had about UPB comes down to.<br /><br />Take a few moments to let that sink in. Then realize that the people at FDR haven't brought that problem with the appendix up with him. Most of them haven't even noticed it.Mr. Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00467771245906558199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6874629230734578214.post-35512685275917415312013-07-17T14:59:27.268-07:002013-07-17T14:59:27.268-07:00Mr. C said, "It's kind of hard to stay ve...Mr. C said, "It's kind of hard to stay very invested in FDR when its main thesis, that all significant problems in society are the result of child abuse, loses its reputation because it seems somewhat overbroad."<br /><br />It is rare that I agree with every point made by every author that I read on the web. I do not agree with everything Stef says. But for me, that is okay, almost inevitable. Sometimes I am wrong and it takes me a while to snap out of it. Sometimes I am right, and being exposed to different ideas keeps me sharp. I am still finding value at FDR, and have not given up on understanding UPB. I have to admit I was surprised that people were so reluctant to discuss UPB, and that threads seem to get diverted so easily. UPB is mentioned frequently in the forum, but rarely applied in a way that provides a clear example, maybe never explained or summarized. (I qualified with that "maybe" because I was not able to read every thread where UPB was mentioned, that would be a massive amount of reading.)Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17330240621500931648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6874629230734578214.post-82830302222236382562013-07-14T10:28:00.467-07:002013-07-14T10:28:00.467-07:00Kevin, your insinuations are incorrect and based o...Kevin, your insinuations are incorrect and based on your lack of knowledge about me, which means, like humans do, you'll tend to fill in the blanks, especially with whatever stereotypes your group has for its opponents.<br /><br />I wasn't bringing up criticisms in that call.<br /><br />I've been trained a bit in logic. I passed with As a few formal logic and mathematical proofs courses without difficulty. I've programmed quite a bit. I like thinking in that way.<br /><br />I'd long had a goal of helping to put UPB on a firmer ground in that sense, and eventually I gathered together the motivation to do that.<br /><br />When I tried, I ran into a lot of difficulties. I couldn't figure out how to organize it better, because the definitions change a lot and terms are used in confused ways. A <b>lot</b> of people who try to understand it in more detail have the same sort of problems, as you can see by the content above the comments.<br /><br />So I called in to gain some clarification on several points, and Stefan apparently didn't understand my first question, so I kept reasking it in different ways, none of which helped.<br /><br />When I attempted to get assistance on the forums, he closed the thread, saying that resolving ethics via writing could never work. That's an interesting position for someone who <b>wrote</b> a book on it.<br /><br />That's what started to give me the impression that Stefan's claims that those who don't get it don't get it due to child abuse might be wrong.<br /><br />It's kind of hard to stay very invested in FDR when its main thesis, that all significant problems in society are the result of child abuse, loses its reputation because it seems somewhat overbroad.Mr. Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00467771245906558199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6874629230734578214.post-74309536227694807982013-07-13T18:37:36.965-07:002013-07-13T18:37:36.965-07:00Mr C actually called into the Sunday Show to talk ...Mr C actually called into the Sunday Show to talk about UPB with Stef, bringing up his criticisms. It was one of the Sunday Shows that made it to YouTube, but I'm having trouble finding it.<br /><br />It's weird though since I remember debating (in favor of) UPB on the boards and Mr C backed me up a bunch. He made some excellent points and made some great arguments by analogy.<br /><br />I would never have guessed he would end up portraying UPB like an immature and stupid theory that only retarded cult members could believe.<br /><br />Whether or not UPB is proven, you are not likely to convince him. His participation with the FDRliberated crowd has soured him to it. It's a real shame.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17312175148651917589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6874629230734578214.post-62187095997351239702013-04-10T15:43:36.694-07:002013-04-10T15:43:36.694-07:00"OK, since it's a category that includes ..."OK, since it's a category that includes things in addition to science and good argument, a flaw might affect those additional elements. This plain fact contradicts that argument."<br /><br />I am guessing that Molyneux would claim that the definition of the UPB category excludes the flawed element.<br /><br />I think for your move to work, Molyneux would need to tell us what criteria are used for determining what is or isn't UPB, and then we would need to find a specific example of a member of the UPB category that has a flaw. <br /><br />Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17330240621500931648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6874629230734578214.post-50760855688155782142013-03-30T06:36:20.782-07:002013-03-30T06:36:20.782-07:00"That is the reverse of my understanding of w..."That is the reverse of my understanding of what Molyneux says about UPB, and the reverse of what I intended in saying that UPB is a generalization. For him, UPB is an abstract category that contains logic etc. as specific examples. Logic is a UPB as Socrates is a man."<br /><br />OK, since it's a category that includes things in addition to science and good argument, a flaw might affect those additional elements. This plain fact contradicts that argument.<br /><br />"The real question is, how do we verify that 'logic is a UPB'? I am not clear on that. It must be more than universality and timelessness. What characteristics do science, logic, fair argument, etc. have in common that mark them as UPB? What characteristic does astrology have that excludes it from the UPB category?"<br /><br />You'll never get any clear answers on any of this, because UPB is a primarily a confusion rather than an idea.<br /><br />"If someone wants to argue against UPB, they should probably call in to freedomain radio's Sunday show and set Stef straight."<br /><br />You're making the unwarranted assumption that that's in any way productive.Mr. Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00467771245906558199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6874629230734578214.post-32909894045330334492013-03-28T17:58:22.975-07:002013-03-28T17:58:22.975-07:00"Since UPB is supposedly a generalization of ..."Since UPB is supposedly a generalization of science and good argument, that means it has other parts to it than those two."<br /><br />That is the reverse of my understanding of what Molyneux says about UPB, and the reverse of what I intended in saying that UPB is a generalization. For him, UPB is an abstract category that contains logic etc. as specific examples. Logic is a UPB as Socrates is a man. Prove something about UPB and logic must share the implication. Use logic to disprove UPB and you disprove logic, hence you proved nothing. This is Stef's favorite move.<br /><br />The real question is, how do we verify that "logic is a UPB"? I am not clear on that. It must be more than universality and timelessness. What characteristics do science, logic, fair argument, etc. have in common that mark them as UPB? What characteristic does astrology have that excludes it from the UPB category?<br /><br />Does Mr. C's comment refer UPB itself, or to my explanation of it? I am just trying to understand UPB, I don't know enough to argue in favor of it or against it. If anyone understands UPB and disagrees with my explanation, I hope they will point out my mistakes so I can fix them. If someone wants to argue against UPB, they should probably call in to freedomain radio's Sunday show and set Stef straight.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17330240621500931648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6874629230734578214.post-42573378685572278632013-03-22T13:07:20.275-07:002013-03-22T13:07:20.275-07:00"1) UPB is a generalization of scientific met..."1) UPB is a generalization of scientific method and fair argument.<br />2) Any argument that applies to UPB and disproves it, can also be applied to the process of fair argument and also disproves the ability of argument to establish truth. It also removes the foundation for all scientific claims."<br /><br />Since UPB is supposedly a generalization of science and good argument, that means it has other parts to it than those two.<br /><br />If the flaw that disproves it is in one of those other parts of it, then obviously it's not arguing against science or good argument, nor do science or good argument save UPB.<br /><br />In particular, the argument quoted above is not part of the scientific method (since the scientific method doesn't talk about the validity of UPB as a whole) and not part of good argument (since no good arguments imply that the validity of a part of something proves the validity of the whole of it).<br /><br />Since the argument intended to prove UPB's validity is flawed without science or good argument being flawed, the argument doesn't save itself.<br /><br />UPB thus is <b>not</b> proven by this low-quality argument, nor is anything else ever proven by a similar argument.Mr. Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00467771245906558199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6874629230734578214.post-45620246749230214102013-03-22T13:02:52.791-07:002013-03-22T13:02:52.791-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Mr. Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00467771245906558199noreply@blogger.com