NigelW

So, what do we call hitting the target at all? Oh wait... valid? And what do we call an arrow closer to the bulls-eye... more accurate? They are both valid, someone is just a better shot... which is what I am saying.

The statements to follow or mine?

My theory is: Theory Vs. Reality = Validity Theory Vs. Theory = Accuracy Both require validity by definition and validity requires empirical testing.

Defining validity and accuracy would be helpful. I don't accept this as a refutation. I don't follow you. Definitions, please.

I've defined validity as conformity to the rules of logic. I've also defined logic as being derived from reality. Lastly I have defined logic as being the basis for Validity. If you test the theory and it is proven, it is valid. It is also accurate compared to a theory that has failed. There is a more accurate way of measuring the accuracy of a theory. You've agreed that it is possible to compare theories against one another. I am arguing that theories, expressed through language, can be compared and that it is more accurate than comparing theories to the real world. Which would be consistent with absolute accuracy, which is absolute accuracy in knowing a theory to be less accurate. You are making a comparison to something in reality. I am saying it is more accurate to say that we compare theories against other theories. If you disagree with something else in particular I would appreciate it being pointed out.

Definitions courtesy of Google. Defrauding is defined as illegally obtaining money from (someone) by deception. Deceiving is defined as giving an appearance or impression different from the true one; misleading. True is defined as in accordance with fact or reality. Misleading is defined as giving the wrong idea or impression. Impression is defined as an idea, feeling, or opinion about something or someone, especially one formed without conscious thought or on the basis of little evidence. Illegal is defined as contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law. Motive is defined as the cause that moves people to induce a certain action.

I am not talking about true or false. What in reality can we compare theories to in order to establish accuracy?

Accuracy is not a thing that exists, it is a comparison. I can be absolutely accurate in saying that you are incorrect, though. You are saying that I am certain and that I am contradicting myself, but you did not ask what I was comparing. If I say that objective truth does not exist, I would be correct. If I said that objective accuracy does not exist, I would be correct. This is because they are concepts. I made the argument that you were conflating accuracy with validity, which you have not refuted. I am not comparing a theory against empirical reality because that is testing the validity, not the accuracy. I apologize if I may be coming across as obtuse, but it is a valid theory to say that valid theories are measured against other valid theories to measure accuracy because the only way you know that your inaccurate is by comparing apples to apples.

If a theory, whose definition implies empirical testing, is valid then by definition is must be accurate. But accurate compared to what? Another theory. Absolute accuracy does not exist. I think you are conflating validity and accuracy because the real world is the basis for logic, you are correct, but logic is the basis for validity. The definition of a theory is that is has already been tested. So when I say that accuracy can only be achieved through comparing theories that implies empirical testing. If a theory is a car, a Lamborghini is faster than a Kia Rio. The definition of a hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research. I am talking about accuracy, not validity. If there is a flaw in logic, then a theory is no longer valid and can not be accurate.

I am in full agreement with you, Pepin. I did a quick google search. I think the definition I was looking for was Meta-analysis, anyways... If I compare a theory that I make today against one I made two weeks ago and recorded, then I can know for certain whether or not I was more or less accurate. If I say I am certain that my theory is 100% accurate we can compare that to other past theories. Then the 100% goes out the window.

I'm not sure if this is relativism creeping in or what, but I do have a thought I would like to have challenged. This may show my lack of education in science, but I am looking for some help. Theories cannot be accurate compared to empirical reality and definitions/theories are not empirical reality. Accuracy can only be arrived at through comparison against other theories. "Your theory is inaccurate..." is less accurate compared to "...your theory compared to my theory is more accurate..." which is more accurate. It is more accurate because there a comparison. Certainty as well... You cannot be certain of a theory compared to empirical reality. You can only be certain that theory is more or less accurate compared to another theory. You can be certain that the statement "...your theory that cars have jet engines is inaccurate..." is less accurate than "...your theory that cars are driven by jet engines is inaccurate compared to my theory that the internal combustion engine is mainly used..." because I am comparing to another theory. (Theories that are accurate, per UPB in a nutshell, must be empirically tested.)

Videos speak for themselves.

If I must figure it out on my own, why are you describing your experience? Your experience is helpful. Maybe I'm a different species? I just don't see the value in being "busy". You can waste a lot of time doing useless stuff and having a steady job is a far cry from where I was 3 years ago.

Thanks Diaz, perhaps I will. Has this worked in your experience? I am interested in challenging myself in that way. I took your advice to some degree. I did a sort of mind mapping which helped me to visually compare alternatives. I will try that mindset out!

My goal is writing this post is to flush out definitions and learn to identify each case more accurately. A boss is someone who is in charge of a worker or organization. A customer is a person or organization that buys goods or services from a store or business. A business is a person's regular occupation, profession, or trade. If I am providing a service in an organization, the value created accrues to that organization's owner. He/She has to spend less time doing what I am doing and more time doing other things... I am being paid by my employer as a result of my service and they are therefore a customer. The main reason these definitions struck me as off is because of a book that I read. "The Leadership Challenge" by Kouzes and Posner runs through examples of successful companies and what they do consistently. Page 255, Table 9.1: "Make certain that everyone in your organization, no matter the task, has a customer. The customer can be internal or external, but each person needs to know whom he or she is serving." I suddenly realized that I have no idea how it is that I am making money at my job. I essentially add value by filtering architectural information. The customer in this case would be the price estimator, one rung above me. My bosses are the general contractors asking for pricing who are external. At a fast food store, the customer would be the supervisor and the boss would be the person ordering. I am suggesting that the current use of boss and customer, in voluntary interactions, is incorrect based on the above uses of the definitions. If I have fallen off my rocker, please let me know! Thanks.

Helps me get up in the morning!

Hello! I would like clarification regarding what delusion is. Could it be that being delusional and being attacked for it is less painful than having a genuine preference and being attacked for it? If I reverse my preferences, it's less painful when I am tortured. Is delusion a protective knee jerk reaction?

I am looking for some advice. The last three months of my life has consisted of me getting a job and moving out of the apartment I was sharing with my sister. Every day I drink coffee. Sometimes 3 cups in the morning before lunch. Physical activity isn't appealing and I would much rather be playing video games which are. I didn't think busing for 1.5 hours to and from work and working 8.5 hours would be so difficult. I can barely find the capacity to do anything else. I've thought of getting a car and forcing myself to exercise, but I just can't seem to gather the interest or the energy. This is a problem because I want to raise my standard of living.

I experienced fear when you first posted.

I think an evil person deciding to have children is a bigger problem. You can't undo crazy.

I can see your point. We need a place to start if you're going to study something. I think a good place to start would be professional video gaming. A league hosts gaming competitions. Leagues receive money from sponsors who want to market their products to gamers. This money is used as cash prizes to tournament winners. Leagues also receive money from charging an entry fee for competitors. The effect of seeing someone making enormous amounts of money winning video game tournaments is certainly enough to make me second guess my job. Hah! What do you suppose the implications of this are?

Some statistics from the Entertainment Software Association: http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/esa_ef_2014.pdf One of the notable statistics in my opinion are on the percentage of people who play Social Games (30%) of the market. Next are Puzzle Games (28%).

I feel like calling those types of people out, but that would ignore the evidence. They don't want to change and trying to change them is hypocritical because the principle 'emotional acting out is bad' must be broken to correct someones emotional acting out. I think its justifiable to, if one is in a bind with a religious person, spew crazy shit back. I could start narrating my morning coffee or completely ignore what they said.

I'm interested to know how some people are dealing with this issue. In a conversation with a coworker who was a Mormon he started talking about how the truth that you know for yourself and the conviction derived from it is all that matters. I made an emotional argument that when people get together they can voluntarily redefine terms. Example, redefining 1 as 2, the sound and symbol, not the quantity. I definitely did not want to get into a debate about religion at work so I avoided the shit out of it. Is this cowardice?

Fantastic. Well I've got my answer. hah