No, I did not. You are committing a converse error fallacy.
I guess you will remain at the idea that only fools can be ever deceived
You have no idea what I believe, because you refuse to listen when I tell you directly: "I did not say that". I know what I said, and only I know what I meant, and I know that you don't know what I meant, and when I tell you directly, you completely ignore me and keep believing I said what I most definitely did not.
I ask a woman out for a date, do I trust that she is going to say yes?
Of course not.
Then why did I ask her out?
p: I trust a woman will say yes
q: I ask her out
p ⇒ q
If I did trust a woman will say yes, then I would ask her out, but if I ask her out, you do see how that would be a fallacy to conclude that I trust she was going to say yes (converse error fallacy), yes?
Therefore you cannot assume I did trust some outcome based on some action. By the exact same token if I go to the store you cannot assume that I trusted any outcome, including me not being murdered. I am rolling the die.
If p I trust I'll roll a 7, then q I roll the die, but q me rolling the die doesn't imply p I trust I'll roll a 7. There are obviously other reasons why I would roll the die, including me hoping--not trusting--that I'll get a 7.
You assume that me engaging in some activity necessarily imples trust, you are 100% wrong.
Therefore you cannot assume I did trust some outcome based on some action
No but I can assume you trust the things would happen according to certain model. E.g. if you ask the woman out, you would expect her either agree, or politely decline. You do not expect her to call the police or her relatives to murder you on the spot for assaulting her honor. Because if you admitted there's a certain non-negligible probability of that, you wouldn't try to ask such a woman out. That's what I am trying to explain to you. Your model of what could happen is the trust that is inherent in all your actions. It is necessary because nobody can account for the infinity of all possible outcomes and accurately predict them. So you trust (or "hope", same thing here) that the model for the situation you use, while inevitably incomplete and inaccurate, is accurate enough for your purposes. Ans yes, that does mean engaging in any activity where you have to model the outcomes implies trust. In yourself, and in others.
Your model of what could happen is the trust that is inherent in all your actions.
You are wrong. The word trust means to "rely on", I don't rely on her not calling the police, that's something you assume, but you don't know my mental state, only I know that, and I'm telling you emphatically that I do not rely on that. You think you can read my mind, but you can't.
I don't have to - I know about human behavior enough to know that a person who thinks asking a woman out would end up with him murdered or in jail, would not ask a woman out (unless he's suicidal or wants to end up in jail as part of his plan to become the next Count of Monte Cristo, but I trust/hope/assume that's not what you are).
You think you can read my mind, but you can't.
I don't need to, if I can observe your behavior and if I can assume you not entirely unlike a typical human. Of course, if you are an alien sent to Earth with the specific purpose to troll me, I'd be wrong every time.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
No, I did not. You are committing a converse error fallacy.
You have no idea what I believe, because you refuse to listen when I tell you directly: "I did not say that". I know what I said, and only I know what I meant, and I know that you don't know what I meant, and when I tell you directly, you completely ignore me and keep believing I said what I most definitely did not.
Then why did I ask her out?
p: I trust a woman will say yesq: I ask her outp ⇒ qIf I did trust a woman will say yes, then I would ask her out, but if I ask her out, you do see how that would be a fallacy to conclude that I trust she was going to say yes (converse error fallacy), yes?
Therefore you cannot assume I did trust some outcome based on some action. By the exact same token if I go to the store you cannot assume that I trusted any outcome, including me not being murdered. I am rolling the die.
If
pI trust I'll roll a 7, thenqI roll the die, butqme rolling the die doesn't implypI trust I'll roll a 7. There are obviously other reasons why I would roll the die, including me hoping--not trusting--that I'll get a 7.You assume that me engaging in some activity necessarily imples trust, you are 100% wrong.
No but I can assume you trust the things would happen according to certain model. E.g. if you ask the woman out, you would expect her either agree, or politely decline. You do not expect her to call the police or her relatives to murder you on the spot for assaulting her honor. Because if you admitted there's a certain non-negligible probability of that, you wouldn't try to ask such a woman out. That's what I am trying to explain to you. Your model of what could happen is the trust that is inherent in all your actions. It is necessary because nobody can account for the infinity of all possible outcomes and accurately predict them. So you trust (or "hope", same thing here) that the model for the situation you use, while inevitably incomplete and inaccurate, is accurate enough for your purposes. Ans yes, that does mean engaging in any activity where you have to model the outcomes implies trust. In yourself, and in others.
You are wrong. The word trust means to "rely on", I don't rely on her not calling the police, that's something you assume, but you don't know my mental state, only I know that, and I'm telling you emphatically that I do not rely on that. You think you can read my mind, but you can't.
I don't have to - I know about human behavior enough to know that a person who thinks asking a woman out would end up with him murdered or in jail, would not ask a woman out (unless he's suicidal or wants to end up in jail as part of his plan to become the next Count of Monte Cristo, but I trust/hope/assume that's not what you are).
I don't need to, if I can observe your behavior and if I can assume you not entirely unlike a typical human. Of course, if you are an alien sent to Earth with the specific purpose to troll me, I'd be wrong every time.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with what I think.
Converse error fallacy.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link