The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The price of judgment > Comments

The price of judgment : Comments

By David Young, published 2/2/2009

The human race is in a mess because we make wild guesses and claim them to be true: we eat fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
This can be disrimination specially when a judge states a persons crime incorrect when a jury has found the person not guilty , and i can prove that judgement

so there for that person should be compensated by the courts for lying in a judgement about a person

when in actual fact a jury found that person not guilty
of a said offence

if any lawyers are reading they will know what i mean or any victims

see the price of judgement is also a princalbe in fact

people are given judgement by the way they look or dress or talk

or by who they know or who they don't know

people make a judgement as soon as they open their eyes as to will i get out of bed or not when they awake

their are many who just make judgement on one person

its just like everything goes around in circle

The price of Judgement Put ones life a step back or forward

depends on who is giving the judgement say if its a judge of the court system , well they would and should be correct as they have a persons past sitting in front of them when knowing to give a judgement on a dission

a normal citezen is more less of an opinion of judgement
Posted by huffnpuff, Monday, 2 February 2009 10:13:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
stickman
Daviy said "Religion and philosophy are the same in the context that …… all have dogma that builds towards identity"

(The central questions all attempt to answer are Who am I, How did I get here, Why am I here. In that fundamental level they are the same. Read 'are the same in the context that')

What are you on about mate? (Can we have a debate without cheap theatrics please?)

… What have you got against philosophy? (Reverse Hiroshima Principle. You make the judgment that I have something against philosophy. That is rubbish but I cannot prove it. ) You appear to misunderstand it utterly(RHP again. What am I writing here if it is not philosophy? Whether or not you agree with my philosophy is your choice.)

And for the record, atheism is not a belief system, it is the absence of one (Incorrect. To believe in the negative is as much a believe as to assert the positive.). ..I choose not to share your belief in whatever god you happen to believe in". That is not a belief system. (I agree. It is a statement of belief.)

To use your analogy, the reverse Hiroshima, organised religion claims that because the non-existence of god is unproveable, he therefore exists. (I do not know what you are arguing here. For or Against? Yes judging in the positive because you cannot prove the negative is RHP. I am saying that if you use RHP you will foul up. This particular argument for the existence of God is ridiculous.)

Daviy said "One thing that I have ... filtered through our belief system."
Are we to assume that this is the reader's fault, and not yours for insufficient clarity?(you may assume what you like, but it will be RHP.)

And that you profess not to view the world through a belief system? (Rubbish, but I cannot prove it. RHP)

I have had to cut more than I wanted because of word constraint. Could I have your permission to use your post as an example in an expanded version of the article?
Posted by Daviy, Monday, 2 February 2009 10:23:30 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Daviy, with the greatest respect, your follow-on comments are almost as obscure as the original article. That last one had so many parentheses that half the time I couldn't work out who was talking to whom.

Let's start by looking at your concept of "judgment".

"The most familiar version in the Christian paradigm is "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shall not eat of it"... I read this as judgment."

I think that's your first problem, right there.

Leave aside the fact that we are talking about an allegory, and imagine there is such a thing - "knowledge of good and evil" - that can be written down in a list. Good in the left-hand column, evil in the right.

Let's then assume that we perceive a particular behaviour. We look it up in the book - and lo! it falleth in one or other column.

That isn't judgment.

That is pre-judgment. Before any act has been committed, it has been predetermined into which column it falleth... err, falls.

My definition would actually be fully consistent with what follows:

"But if judgment is the problem then any answer to the problem must be free of judgment."

Substitute the word "pre-judgment", and it works perfectly.

Your version does not work, and cannot work, as you have not demonstrated judgment per se to be any sort of problem at all.

Whereas the man on the Clapham omnibus could describe many, many problems associated with prejudice.

Then there's:

"If a human does not know something they make a wild guess. They then claim their wild guess is true"

Evidence? Examples? Justification? Background thoughts, ideas, concepts?

None.

And that's where it all falls apart.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 3 February 2009 7:49:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I, for one, enjoyed the article. While I don't think it offers a practical solution to problems (we will always have to use judgment and weigh up the odds if we are to make decisions in a timely manner), it certainly does give a possible explanation for the ways in which our judgment leads to errors.

As for the note that 'what a writer writes and a reader reads are often very different. I put this down to the words being filtered through our belief system': this reminds me of something I read in Pierre Bayard's "How to talk about books you haven't read". A good book.

The author talks about the idea of the "inner book". When we read something, the text we have in our head is detached from that which we find on paper. Our own experiences, beliefs and knowledge filter the contents of the text and create a new text within our heads. My "Tale of Two Cities" is undoubtedly different from yours, and both are different from that which lived in Dickens' head. The paper (or, in this case, online) text differs substantially from the texts that exist in people's heads. I don't think Daviy was being judgmental when he noted this - he was just accounting for the differences in understanding (jump in anytime if I'm wrong, Daviy!). Furthermore, he wasn't excluding himself from having a belief system - remember that the entire article to which we are responding stems from his beliefs!

You hit the nail on the head, though, Stickman, when you noted that atheism is not a belief system. It doesn't mean that one doesn't have a belief system, but it is not a belief system in itself. Atheists can still have views about the difference between right and wrong, they can have beliefs about the formation of the world; inevitably, we all have beliefs of some sort. But atheism is not a belief.
Posted by Otokonoko, Tuesday, 3 February 2009 5:02:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles
I was careful to define exactly the form of judgment I was talking about. Examples? The Iraq war was given. Your post is a classic example of re-defining and attacking the re-defined. It seems inevitable that some will use this form of fallacious argument.
Pre-judgment is the definition of prejudice. If you want to redefine making wild guess and claiming them to be true to be prejudice that OK by me.
My previous post was an interlaced reply to stickman. Maybe addressing it to stickman didn't make that clear enough.

'I believe this is an original hypothesis, so if you try to research the contents the only likely reference that will come up will be my book The Fall of Man. Other may be working along similar lines but I am unaware of such works. If there are others working along similar lines I would be interested to see what they are doing.'

This comes directly from the Article. There is never any evidence for a new hypothesis. If there were all progress would cease. If you want background you could read my book. Anything new that challenges existing paradigms will be resisted so I am not surprised by opposition to my hypothesis.

The basic premise of the article is very simple.
' From there I looked for specific types of wild guess. I identified two types of wild guess that divorced us from reality:
1) finding in the negative because we cannot prove the positive; and
2) finding in the positive because we cannot prove the negative.

You may not agree, but it is not difficult to understand. And yet your rebuttal techniques appear to show little comprehension of the statements you are challenging. Notice here that that I am not using RHP to claim you do not understand. You may well understand, and your use of the technique of the redefine to suit your purpose could be deliberate. That I do not, nor can I, judge.

The techniques used by yourself and others in this 'debate' reinforces my original hypothesis. (Hypothesis meaning untested theory).
Posted by Daviy, Tuesday, 3 February 2009 5:10:10 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well Daviy, you did, sort of, you know, stick your chin out on this one. I thought the feedback was mostly quite positive, there are some real thinkers out there and if you can't handle the heat, stay out of kitchen.

Sure your "hypothesis" got a bit re-worked, maybe bacause you were a bit obtuse in the first place, or perhaps the natural talent out there sensed you already had a percceived solution to your hypothesis?

I feel that the thrust of rebuttals are that each "philosophy", social, religious, political etc, etc. all carry their own "dogma", and as a direct consequence, drive the decision making process at both an individual and collective level. You may need to broaden the debate to get more "buy in".
Posted by spindoc, Tuesday, 3 February 2009 8:22:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy