|
Post by Random on Oct 17, 2005 17:47:53 GMT -5
alright enough bs okok, I may seem hypoctitical, but the fact is that I know you, thus I have some evidence to base my assumtions off of. granted, if I didn't know you, yes, I would be a hypcryte. the important part of that is "but the fact is that i know you, thus i have some evidence to base my assumptions off of". now lets look at a definition of assume. evidence can often be considered proof, or verification in some cases, so, lets take a look at the definition of proof. based on this, "assuming" that, in this case, i cannot hold my alcohol, is not an assumption at all. similarly, saying that one cannot live life without making assumptions is ALSO foolish, as patterns can be thought of as proof for something as well, as it is a piece of information that "compels the mind to accept an assertion as true". source > www.dictionary.com
|
|
|
Post by Random on Oct 17, 2005 18:28:04 GMT -5
additionally, please do not use the argument that you can't actually know that someone is going to do something, even if there is a pattern, "proof" no longer means indisputable evidence, people throw it around to mean anything that suggests something really
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Oct 17, 2005 21:00:39 GMT -5
ok, if thats the case, then in that case people very rarely make assumptions, because usually they do have some kind of evidence behind thier assumptions. Whenever people say something its usually based on a pattern of past experience. To me, an assumption is not when someone has no evidence to make the decision (for me thats a guess) its when people make a decision without all the information. And thats why I dont think assumptions are bad, because rarely do people know the exact answer, and they have to sometimes make assumptions, or at least, making an assumption is usually better than doing nothing at all. Plus, making assumptions (at least, until actions are made with those assumptions, as is usually done on this forum) rarely (if ever) have any terrible consequences, and other people can always refute assumptions and provide evidence to back it up. Therefore, rather than accuse someone of assuming, I think its better to let people assume and then if they make a wrong assumption, tell them that you think so.
|
|
|
Post by Random on Oct 17, 2005 23:23:49 GMT -5
based on the fact that you are operating on a different definition, i don't feel i have any reason to continue to debate this, hopefully you understand now that by my definition and the dictionary definition assuming is a stupid thing to do in my opinion
what you seem to call assumptions are what i call educated guesses, which are fine, and of COURSE you have to make them, but like i proved in my first post, those are not assumptions based on resources that define what things are, which in many ways is pretty much all there is
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Oct 17, 2005 23:48:14 GMT -5
And Im saying that the way you defined assumptions, assumptions are almost never made. Your calling Terrance on making an assumption didnt fit your defenition.
There is a conflict between your defenition and your practical defenition.
|
|
|
Post by Random on Oct 17, 2005 23:55:15 GMT -5
based on this, "assuming" that, in this case, i cannot hold my alcohol, is not an assumption at all. similarly, saying that one cannot live life without making assumptions is ALSO foolish, as patterns can be thought of as proof for something as well, as it is a piece of information that "compels the mind to accept an assertion as true". and as far as in the bored thread goes, i believe i was confusing terrance has pretty much 0 knowledge of how much i drink, if any, what he did was sort of halfway between assumption and educated guess, because the knowledge he has of me is not directly related to drinking and the part about assumptions being made when they didn't need to be being stupid was seperate from that
|
|
|
Post by Evilduck on Oct 19, 2005 18:22:11 GMT -5
Assumtions are lame, guessing is better. Face it foolish humans, all that you say is destined to be wrong by the virtue of your blinding incompetence. Why waste the effort to analyze data? Guess instead. It actually has a higher chance of being right because it takes your stupidity out of the process loop.
|
|
|
Post by dietspam16 on Oct 20, 2005 15:30:54 GMT -5
Ok, this is essentially an arguement over semantics and primarily definitions. My view on this arguement: Dictionary: to take something to be true with little or no proof
laymens view: To make a blind leap of faith in a serious of logical connections to the conclusion
The examples your argueing about are lame and insignifigant, and more a battle of semantics and interpretations. Also, to say assumptions are never made is false, they may rarely be acted upon by the dictionaries definition, but they are used extensively when exploring posibilities and consequences/reations/results etc in various profession including law, medicine, business, nd science. you make the assumption, then deduce our way backwards. So says me, YAY!
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Oct 20, 2005 16:05:55 GMT -5
I agree completely with you alex, the thing is, is JP for some reason believes that patterns are concrete proof, which, in my opinion they arent. If patterns are concrete proof then in that case people never make assumptions because they almost always have some kind of pattern of past experience backing up what they think. If they dont, its still not an assumption its a guess.
|
|
|
Post by Random on Oct 20, 2005 16:12:06 GMT -5
i already gave you the definition for proof. all it is is evidence or something that compels the mind to accept something as true.
as with the example you used way back when, someone behind you in a dark area reaching into a pocket. you know for a fact that whats in their pocket could be a knife or a gun, so you're careful. you know that its happened before to other people, and you don't want it to happen to you, so as a result, you're on your guard. assuming is more arbitrarily deciding something based on nothing at all the way i see it, like i've already said several times now
when did i say that? i don't appreciate words being put in my mouth. in some ways assumptions are the same as guesses
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on Oct 20, 2005 16:30:26 GMT -5
Is there ever concrete proof in real life? I mean every day in the past, the sky was blue. But who is to say that some random supreme being won't turn it pink tomorrow? I think that we always rely on patterns to judge our world. In many cases, these patterns are accurate.
I think only in mathematics does undeniable solid proof actually exist.
|
|
|
Post by Random on Oct 20, 2005 16:41:15 GMT -5
exactly, which further proves my point that proof and evidence aren't neccesarily solid
this could also bring up that, really, no one ever has all the pieces, which would mean that by ali's definition everything is an assumption
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Oct 20, 2005 17:01:14 GMT -5
and most things are assumptions. And when I said that assumptions are the same as guesses, you never said that, but your defenitions for assumption is the same as a defenition for a guess. ie, you have no reason to make one choice or another.
While assuming that tomorrow the sky will be blue is a relatively obvious assumption, its still an assumption. It could be wrong (however unlikely).
|
|
|
Post by Random on Oct 20, 2005 17:08:35 GMT -5
firstly, my definition for assumption is the same as guess, thats obvious
so, lets say you meant that in your opinion something isn't an assumption, but a guess, if theres no pattern to base it off of. that'd be going against what you just said. mixing my (dictionary) definitions with your definitions there is foolish
and as for the second statement, thats fundamentally flawed, for the exact same reason i outlined in the first post, you're still not using the word according to its actual definition
|
|