Meet Nimrod. He is an ardent believer that there will be a catastrophic upheaval of reality, an Apocalypse, when the great Mayan calendar cycle ends on 21 December 2012. His world view deeply reflects this belief.
Nimrod has developed his own language based on his beliefs.
For example he defines colors called "grue" and "bleen" such that:
-------Grue = green for any object observed before the apocalypse, but blue if it is not observed before the apocalypse.
-------Bleen = blue if observed before the apocalypse, green if not observed before the apocalypse.
Now we have always observed emeralds and well watered lawns as being green. So inductive reasoning has led us to declare that all Emeralds and all live grass is green. Every time we look at another emerald, or a well watered lawn, our reasoning is reinforced.
But Nimrod has always observed emeralds as grue. Every emerald he has ever seen is grue. So what's to prevent him from using inductive reasoning to confirm his position? All emeralds are grue. No emerald that is not grue has ever been observed.
So you respond: "Look, Nimrod, your definition is stupid. What makes you think that the characteristics of emeralds will change after 12 December 2012?"
"What are you talking about?" Nimrod responds. "Nothing will change. I've prepared myself. Emeralds will remain grue after the apocalypse, just as always. It is you who are not prepared to accept the apocalypse. You are the one who is trying to argue that Emeralds will change from Grue to Bleen after the apocalypse! What a ridiculous, illogical idea!"
OK, you think, I can trip this guy up.
"What wavelength is Grue light?" you ask. "How many nanometers? Is it the same wavelength after the apocalypse as before?"
"What's a nanometer?" Nimrod responds. "Grue is measured in apocalypticons; and of course it's the same whether measured before or after the apocalypse. It's you who has the useless method of measuring. You have your head buried in the sand. You're not prepared for the apocalypse, dude! Get with the program!"
Well, he's got you, eh? What justifies your assumption that your conclusions based on inductive reasoning are preferable to Nimrod's differing world-view based on the same tools of inductive reasoning? What makes your arbitrary choice of definitions more "fundamental" than his? How do you respond?
Question
Guest
Meet Nimrod. He is an ardent believer that there will be a catastrophic upheaval of reality, an Apocalypse, when the great Mayan calendar cycle ends on 21 December 2012. His world view deeply reflects this belief.
Nimrod has developed his own language based on his beliefs.
For example he defines colors called "grue" and "bleen" such that:
-------Grue = green for any object observed before the apocalypse, but blue if it is not observed before the apocalypse.
-------Bleen = blue if observed before the apocalypse, green if not observed before the apocalypse.
Now we have always observed emeralds and well watered lawns as being green. So inductive reasoning has led us to declare that all Emeralds and all live grass is green. Every time we look at another emerald, or a well watered lawn, our reasoning is reinforced.
But Nimrod has always observed emeralds as grue. Every emerald he has ever seen is grue. So what's to prevent him from using inductive reasoning to confirm his position? All emeralds are grue. No emerald that is not grue has ever been observed.
So you respond: "Look, Nimrod, your definition is stupid. What makes you think that the characteristics of emeralds will change after 12 December 2012?"
"What are you talking about?" Nimrod responds. "Nothing will change. I've prepared myself. Emeralds will remain grue after the apocalypse, just as always. It is you who are not prepared to accept the apocalypse. You are the one who is trying to argue that Emeralds will change from Grue to Bleen after the apocalypse! What a ridiculous, illogical idea!"
OK, you think, I can trip this guy up.
"What wavelength is Grue light?" you ask. "How many nanometers? Is it the same wavelength after the apocalypse as before?"
"What's a nanometer?" Nimrod responds. "Grue is measured in apocalypticons; and of course it's the same whether measured before or after the apocalypse. It's you who has the useless method of measuring. You have your head buried in the sand. You're not prepared for the apocalypse, dude! Get with the program!"
Well, he's got you, eh? What justifies your assumption that your conclusions based on inductive reasoning are preferable to Nimrod's differing world-view based on the same tools of inductive reasoning? What makes your arbitrary choice of definitions more "fundamental" than his? How do you respond?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
15 answers to this question
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.