Page 2 of 2
Re: "Convince yourself"
Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 5:07 pm
by Defy V
Fredjikrang wrote:I guess that I could understand it sounding strange for concepts that don't have a concrete answer, such as Uffish's example. But in testable situations, I don't see any problem.
Maybe that is why there is a divide? The more science oriented crowd is used to working with objective things, and so it doesn't both them as much, while the more artistic/relative crowd finds it somewhat unsettling, since they are mostly dealing with subjective things?
Yeah, it doesn't bother me because an equation is correct whether or not I see why. It becomes my responsibility to "convince myself." For subjective things, "convince yourself" has a different connotation.
But then comes the question of using "convince yourself" in the context the Church, which I believe is as correct as any mathematical equation. Is it an appropriate phrase in that case?
Re: "Convince yourself"
Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 5:15 pm
by Katya
Defy V wrote:But then comes the question of using "convince yourself" in the context the Church, which I believe is as correct as any mathematical equation. Is it an appropriate phrase in that case?
No, because it's not correct in the same way that mathematical equations are. (If it was, there wouldn't be multiple religious denominations, because people would just test each denomination until they found the correct one.)
Re: "Convince yourself"
Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 5:36 pm
by Fredjikrang
But isn't that exactly what our religion professes? That people can do just that?
Re: "Convince yourself"
Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 5:51 pm
by Marduk
The church is not provable using the scientific method.
Re: "Convince yourself"
Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 5:56 pm
by UffishThought
Fredjikrang wrote:I guess that I could understand it sounding strange for concepts that don't have a concrete answer, such as Uffish's example. But in testable situations, I don't see any problem.
Maybe that is why there is a divide? The more science oriented crowd is used to working with objective things, and so it doesn't both them as much, while the more artistic/relative crowd finds it somewhat unsettling, since they are mostly dealing with subjective things?
Not only that, but I'd never heard the more scientific connotation before. While to the science oriented crowd, it carries over well, I only heard it with a rude connotation. Now I know better. (But since I suspect other people might have the same reaction, it might be wise to explain that one before you use it in mixed company, if you're aiming to be understood.)
Re: "Convince yourself"
Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 8:03 pm
by TheBlackSheep
Exactly. And psychology, which is where my question started, is a scientific pursuit, and the phrase still rubbed me the wrong way. (Necessary aside about how people aren't physical objects but it does follow the scientific method, etc.)
Re: "Convince yourself"
Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 8:56 pm
by Marduk
People aren't objects? Then why do I keep treating them like objects?
....
Especially women. Women are totally objects.
Re: "Convince yourself"
Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 9:07 pm
by TheBlackSheep
Imma cut you.
Re: "Convince yourself"
Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 11:23 pm
by Tao
Marduk wrote:People aren't objects? Then why do I keep treating them like objects?
....
Especially women. Women are totally objects.
Objectivism at its core.
TheBlackSheep wrote:Imma cut you.
And the obvious response thereunto.
Re: "Convince yourself"
Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 10:46 am
by Yarjka
"It turns out ..." is another phrase that is used all the time by science professors.
Re: "Convince yourself"
Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 12:17 pm
by Digit
I probably say "necessary but not sufficient" more than the average person.
Re: "Convince yourself"
Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 3:36 pm
by NerdGirl
Thought of another one! "If and only if."
Re: "Convince yourself"
Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 3:50 pm
by Katya
and/or
Re: "Convince yourself"
Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 6:09 am
by Yarjka
"Is that a valid hypothesis?"