Why? Exceptions should change everything bec. they are facts. I never understand this.
We should change how it works.
Still there is a chance, i cannot say the chubby one will fail 100%. The percentage is really low but there is still a chance which seems random but it isn't. Again, take everything seriously, a low percentage still means something.
It depends.(Yes, this is my best answer when it compressed into 2 words.)(The main theme of my answers to this topic is this.)
There is still a low chance for surviving.(the eating patterns of animals etc.) Its not about crocodiles being naive, it's a chance and a fact can happen anytime.
Yes, you're still generalizing, we cannot change the meaning of generalization.
We don't know everything about liquids, so the term can change on various conditions. We shouldn't generalize on anything we don't know %100 percent. And this is possible with a very very low chance.(i'm not saying that it's impossible, i'm not 100% sure.)
Exceptions change everything. No. An exception of one sand grain being a different color doesn't change the uniformity of every other grain of sand on the beach.
No, there is no chance. Not mathematically reasonable. And even if it were then it's too flukey/ unreliable to have that person be called upon for a team. The fact that having a certain body structure/ bone structure/ metabolism/ etc. creates a likelihood for victory means that there are denominators that give practical/ mathematical evidence towards something being successful.
A pig cannot win in a horse race. If it does then it was a fluke. The best/ distinct among horses are chosen for the competition. When a pig on average cant outrun a horse, then what do you have?
Just listen to your genuine feelings and stop trying to follow a straw-grasping ideology. That fulfills some kind of arbitrary emotional purpose. Just because you want the spirit of people to be strong/ open/ constantly paradigm reformative, and to never sit complacently on one reality seen as unequivocally true.... doesn't mean that there aren't unequivocal truths.
We shouldn't generalize... but we do. It's not about having the 100% mathematically accurate measurement. Sometimes we are handtied to hypothesis because of incomplete information, and believe me, information will always be incomplete. But we still need to make an assumption. But we must base it on a chain of substantiated datapoints.
We should have the chain of substantiated datapoints based in every information medium which has value/ merit.
Substantiation chain/ verification chain goes this way.
Scientific Method:
>Claim/ Attestment/ Observation
>Cite Supporting Evidence
>Scan for Counterevidence (evidence of absence is not the absence of evidence/ but the absence of counterevidence is often the indication of commonality).
>Settlement of Substantiation
>Hypothesis
>Theory
>Gather more information.
In the scientific theory, nothing is proven without a doubt.
None of us live in a completely polished/ thoroughly refined reality.
I just believe that the evidence I have substantiates more than counterevidence, which cannot be as well substantiated.
Mine is practical/ verifiable/ actionable.
This is the method which everyone else interfaces.
Divine revelation/ 6th sense perception has yet to be a verifiable source of understanding.
We each only have the capacity to create, by our subjectivity, substantiable stances.
But it's never 100% complete. Even if it were, we're still not objective. There is no objectivity because we epistemologically can't understand every angle from the universe.
But you gotta estimate what is objective based on what is apparent/ in effect/ pragmatic subjectivity... towards what really matters.
The subject, or object. Both are irrelevent in the grand scheme of sentient/ mortal life.
Trajectivity matters. It means, the transmitting, and understanding that in relation to subjective, and objective. It's effect that matters more than the nature of things. In the ways of the world. What I said is correct in almost all cases. And we can lean on that as assumed fact and be okay. The trajectivity of it is mapped out. And even if there are things that defy our view of generalities... then they will be dealt with. With keen vigilance. But that's all.
You can live with the rudimentary knowledge of a desert for as long as you can, and reserve mental energy for exceptions. Deserts are relatively simple, and repetitious, and providing little insight.
It's more about what serves us, than having our minds serving the constant labor of learning. Learning without power/ propriety is pointless. Our brains were designed to be efficient in understanding/ learning/ subconscioning the majority of things for a reason.
"we don't know about liquids"... lol.
Substantiation for this claim?
By what criteria of assignation do you base "knowing" on? when it comes to liquid.
A
liquid is a sample of matter that conforms to the shape of a container in which it is held, and which acquires a defined surface in the presence of gravity. The term
liquid is also used in reference to the state, or condition, of matter having this property.
You're telling me we don't have enough sensory accuracy to depict what liquid is? ...
It's like you're telling us our minds/ sensationality is completely wrong.
By what factors/ aspects about liquid are so lost on our minds that this is miscalculated?
This is excessive epistemological suspension.
Some things are just plainly apparent. You don't need to constantly make wonderings about reality over them. You can't, but they just don't matter...
That was irrelevant anyway.
Whether we know it or not, take what you would say falls under the matter-classification of Liquid, and I am liquidizing it.
You don't need to know, if you're going to be a football player, about things that do not pertain to football. However, the chance of "pokemon" affecting football could be nil.
"It depends" is untrue when something is not dependent on it.
Do you say "It depends?" when you say that "if I don't catch mewtwo, or if I don't pick up my newspaper will the san diego chargers lose?". No, because the game is dependent on neither.
"Hey would the germans have lost if I lose my game of candy crush"... "IT DEPENDS!"... (jfl)
We make so many underlying generalizations because of us running on instincts dude. But there are safe generalizations. Our minds tacitly tell that the only thing that really matters are practicals. When a big rig nig football player steps on to the field, or mike tyson, do you think they're thinking they're going to lose if their cousin doesn't get his mail? No. That doens't impact the game.
Mike Tyson can't define himself (I assume) the formula behind force, but he knows how to pack a punch because of muscle reflex.
Our minds safely assume things that aren't prominent. (Leads to issues in some cases). But we gain keen awareness of things that are questionable (if relevant). But because we are constantly running on instincts, then almost none of us has a polished intelligence/ paradigm.
We are ALL reductionists. Because we are incapable of not being that way. We're only sentient observers who can map the territory. But our understanding of the territory is singular while the territory can be observed from different angles. There are more possible neuro connections in the brain than there are particles in the universe.
We are the mappers, not the territory itself.
There could be dimensions of reality that are influencing aspects even our machines/ self improving A.I. can't read. Pandimensional influencing. Like Time/ Space intersectioning from invisible influencers. But it's not exactly likely. We only have chains of substantiation based on what can be sensed by vessels of detection such as machines, or sentients.
I am not generalizing. I am taking something that is generally true and saying it is generally true.
There's a chain of substantiation to support it.
Calling it reductionist lapses from your credibility, and tries to subliminally annotate me/ imply me as small minded or something idk.
Tell me if this feels like your previous negative call outs towards me in my "generalization": are you generalizing when you say most human beings have hands/ feet? no. because you're not expanding particular instances over another set of situations/ things. It's just true. Amputated cripples make up the minority in our society, and it often happens off the atypic arrangement of our biology. Most are born with what they need. Most genetic defects were killed off before humanitarian havening.
I can say all this while you roll your eyes with "GENERALIZER" but it's up to you to show me substantiation against it, not emotion.
Absolutizing is where you take a situation and make it absolutely true/ invariable of circumstance. When you say that "all natural life must die" then that is indeed a fact/ absolutely true. If not, find me counterevidence.
I wasn't changing the meaning of generalization. I am saying that you are not making something general, as that is a misdenotation. In reality, it is simply identifying something with one of its valid parts. Not making it into something else.
Quit being a nuancing nancy. It's libfag thinking. Be practical. By your logic, the case would be closed even on scientific theses that have given us the tv, microwave, steam engine, etc.
