Neverending Audit

Thank you for your peaceful gesture.

I’m sure you noted that this:

When dealing with psychological data it’s extremely unwise to infer fake data from outrageous responses.

has yet to be answered and that this lack of answer is quite a tell about the kind of pea and thimble game that is being played in the auditing sciences.

I believe this just reinforces Jonathan Haidt’s point:

Anyone who values truth should stop worshiping reason. We all need to take a cold, hard look at the evidence and see reasoning for what it is.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/hope-for-reason/

While I still hope for reason (based on evidence like #5), climate blogland is becoming quite depressing, really.

(Source: faustusnotes.wordpress.com)

The plethora of memes Carrick just bloated deserves due diligence. But since Carrick insists, we can talk a bit about shifting the burden of proof. This won’t take long.

Read More

(Source: moyhu.blogspot.ca)

[Alex Heyworth syllogizes.]

Knowledge is power. Power corrupts. Corruption is a crime.

Crime doesn’t pay.

Therefore, the more I know the poorer I get.

(Source: judithcurry.com)

> [M]odeling results have no truth value. In modal logic we would say they express possibility, not (physical) necessity, or even probability.

It would be interesting to know in which modal logic does not have truth values. Modalities qualify the truth of a judgment, they do not eliminate truth:

Read More

(Source: judithcurry.com)

Nullius,

Aristotle’s logic is a term logic, not a propositional logic.

To falsify A, you need to show that C does not follow from B.

In other words, A is false if and only C is false when B is true.

By rejecting B, which is a standard result of all attempts at economic modelling that Annan is aware of you have no business stating anything about the validity of A.

Another strategy would be to deny A because it’s justified:

Denial Logic DL, a system of justification logic, is the logic of an agent whose justified beliefs are false, who cannot avow his own propositional attitudes or believe tautologies, but who can believe contradictions.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.0389

This logic might appeal to gaming theorists.

(Source: collide-a-scape.com)