1.) His explanation is expressly not a priori in that it is empirical.
2.) I think you should read a little bit about that term, other than the mere definition, because you are using it incorrectly. a priori refers to a category of knowledge. That is, it refers to something that it is impossible to verify apart from logic (which is a priori). It is not just a proposition that one does not know for sure or a synonym for “subjective judgement” as it seems to be used around here. Statistics and Probability are not a priori categories; they are empirical. Time, space, causation, logic; these are a priori categories.
Oh I get it. So you, like, made an assumption about my individual circumstance and then proceeded to extrapolate an entire blanket argument based on your baseless assumption…and lecture me on the dangers of talking about things you don’t specifically know.
Yeah I thought about bringing that up, but I figured if I got sucked into calling out everything this guy does incorrectly and/or for nothing other than to seem above the fray, I’d never be finished.
I mean a priori in the sense of knowledge/justification independent of (or before) experience. Perhaps I have the wrong definition? I know etymologically it is Latin meaning “from what comes first.”
Regardless, I’m not taking a social stance on this. I’m seriously wondering how JJ, and perhaps you Aristophanes, consider knowledge to be a priori at all. I realize that Mises speaks of this, but I’ve yet to delve into AE surrounding epistemology. Perhaps this is the perspective you and JJ are coming from? Basically, again, what I mean is this:
Presumably, JJ does not know Clayton. Clayton said something to the effect of not having an unfair advantage or receiving benefits as white people stereotypically do even though he is, himself, white. JJ says that he probably has, all while not knowing one way or the other. Hence, my a priori reference: JJ took prior experiences that he has presumably witnessed with white people and social benefits and induced a theory that Clayton has probably received these benefits without realizing it. If there was an a posteriori approach to knowledge, or “coming after” the experience of witnessing Clayton as an individual, then I would certainly agree that he could know one way or the other. My entire point is that without witnessing (experiencing) Clayton’s life in reference to how he is treated for being white, there’s no way JJ could know one way or the other. Hence my criticism of his blanket statement of “probably” receiving these benefits. He has no proof and thus no evidence to provide a basis for knowledge.
? WTF are you talking about? You’re entertaining, JJ, and I enjoy conversing with you in the forums, but sometimes I seriously don’t understand where you’re coming from. If you want to understand my position, read what I wrote above to Aristophanes.
Alex Jones and Piers Morgan have little to gain by attempting to sound reasonable to an indefinite majority of the people. They are not running for presidency.
Instead both want to appeal to specific target groups within the general population.
And these groups scarcely intersect. So such a “debate” can be a major victory for both of them.
Alex Jones histrionics for instance have different effects on different people. Since he runs a niche business he can afford being seen as a lunatic by 90% of Piers audience, insofar as he succeeds in connecting well with the remaining 10%, he will turn a net profit.
That’s because most people that already tolerate or even admire his antics will not be disturbed by his behavior, on the contrary, they will consider it legit.
Therefore Alex Jones can effectively grow his own brand by acting like that on Piers Morgan show.
Conversely, Piers Morgan also benefits. He manages to showcase to his target audience how much rage he can leverage from a typical leader of a group that his target audience already consider as repugnant.
So Piers Morgan grows his own brand.
It’s win win.
The advances of a general “cause” of gun rights is a secondary afterthought for both of them. It is hard to specify how it is affected by this occasion because it’s such a vague notion.
Maybe more people become disgusted with gun owners, as a short term impact of Jones craziness, but maybe some gun rights people that were marginally engaged now feel the need to participate more, and the long term impact might be positive (for gun rights people).
It’s a complicated and massively unpredictable process, but it’s also marginally important for both Morgan and Jones.
I’m not going to argue about this, because you are pretty much right, but I tend to think Probability is at best a form of synthetic reasoning. You need a few stats before you can begin to deduce. a priori categories won’t have that constraint. I don’t think the business/financial community uses the term in quite the same sense that philosophers do.
I’m mainly speaking from the perpsective of the probability course I took at university as part of my math degree. It was essentially probability theory with proofs and derivations for the equations used in “sadistics” (as the probability professor joked) e.g. first moment, variance, covariance, distribution/density function, etc. We solved a lot of double integrals. Heh. Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to fit statistics into my courses. I may take it as a post-bac, though.