"people only look out for number one"

Post Reply New Topic

Whoa, sorry to be a "bother." Help me to understand: you couldn't be bothered to read my post, but you could be bothered to respond to it? What are you posting for ... posterity?

No. I'm posting to point out that hypothetical situations don't matter, and that I don't bother to consider them.

Just because a person posts something, it does not necessarily follow that anyone else should ever feel compelled to read it; unless, of course, there is some personal benefit to be derived.

Last edited by Fnord on 07 Jun 2011, 10:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

What if it's too late? Like now?

Nice try.

Yeah, except I wasn't being at all hypothetical this time.

Any question that begins with "What if..." is a hypothetical question. Once I see "What if..." I stop read the hypothesis, and move on to something more relevant.

That's a shame. You missed the non-hypothetical part. And ultimately the whole point.

What if you give up trolling and actually contribute something?

"What if..." questions are a driving force of philosophy, and through that can lead to a greater understanding of yourself, humanity and of many other meanings. To exclude yourself of such knowledge means missing out on potential greater understanding of a subject. What if people never asked "what if..." questions?

To the OP- the phrase basically means look out for yourself first. While it can be taken as "only do stuff that benefits you" it can also be interpreted in a friendlier way, depending on how you define benefit.

It is usually taken for the cynical meaning, like don't trust others, never rely on others, take any opportunity because everyone else would too, etc.

When a hypothetical question is posed as part of a real investigative process ("Will raising the ambient temperature decrease efficiency? Let's find out..."), then it is a valid tool of research. But when a hypothetical question is posed just to support a case that has already been made, then it is irrelevant.

Here is the proper way:

1. Observe a phenomenon.
2. Hypothesize its behavior.
3. Seek out supporting data
4. If no data supports the hypothesis, then discard or modify it.
5. Experiment to verify the hypothesis
6. If the the experiment does not support the hypothesis, then discard the hypothesis or modify it.
7. Form a theory to explain the successful experiment.
8. Submit the theory for peer review.
9. If the peer-review does not support the theory, then return to step 1.

Here is one of the many improper ways:

1. Form an idea.
2. Re-define established terms and principles to support the idea, and call the original definitions wrong.
3. Imagine a situation that is custom-made to support the idea and call it "evidence".
4. Publish the idea as a hypothesis, including the re-defined terms and custom-made "evidence".
5. Attack any who ignore the hypothesis or who point out its obvious flaws.
6. Return to step 1.

The former is called "Scientific Method", while the latter is called "Pseudo-Scientific Method".

"Pseudo-" means "False-". Thus, the improper way is false science.

Class is dismissed.

The scientific method is for science.

Hypothetical questions are for philosophy.

What constitutes "altruism" is not a "scientific" question.

This is a forum where people may want to share their emotions or feelings with others. I think you need to locate a forum or thread for scientific discussion or for artificial intelligence units to share data.

Since when does "General Autism Discussion" forum have such limitations? Evidence, please?

It seems to me that the major cause of difficulty in any discussion is when at least one person involved tries to re-define meanings of words and rules to suit their own agendae, instead of accepting pre-defined terms and rules as they stand. It also seems to me that this is characteristic of those with HFA or similar disorders. Finally, it seems to me that many of these very same people simply can not accept that someone who does not make up his own rules and definitions might actually have something worthwhile to say.

Suggestion: Petition the mods for a "Science-Free" forum to call your own.

No I never suggested this be a science-free forum. I was recommending that you may find more stimulation in other forums where the focus of discussion require application of Occam's razor, the scientific method and evidence based data.

You know, I've been troubled by this since you wrote it a couple of days ago. Maybe we're talking about completely different things, here? Maybe you're being absurd or obscure just for the sake of it?

How do you address future contingencies? I mean, do you really live according to a very strict sense of, if it's not happening now or reasonably certain to happen in the future, then you don't have to consider it? Don't we all ask (ourselves and others) and answer hypothetical questions all the time, whether or not we do so explicitly?

Do you not have any forms of insurance, for example? Or do you consider possibilities somehow qualitatively different than hypotheticals?