This statement is false, no matter who you substitute for X and Y:
"Whatever X can articulate, Y can articulate with a higher degree of understanding"
There is always something.
Conversation
Replying to
How is it quantifying "higher degree"?
With a sufficiently limited definition, I don't see how that can be false - almost ever.
1
Replying to
Vague tweet on my part. It's quarter baked.
Let's say Y has a higher degree of understating than X, if Y is using X's conclusions as premises in a larger structure, to reach a conclusion that is beyond X.
2
Replying to
Thanks, but still not following.
Hypothetical: You are a nuclear physicist. I am a layperson with some knowledge of nuclear physics.
On average, how likely is it for any issue pertaining to nuclear physics, that you can't articulate it with a higher degree of understanding?
Replying to
"whatever X can articulate" is a universal quantifier. It's the set of arguments X can articulate.
Lay person knows than nuclear physicist about Dune novels, say.
1
1
Replying to
Oh, a *universal* quantifier. Now I get it.
Well, yeah, then you always have the fallback of a bunch of (presumptively) unique experiences, right? Pretty much impossible to beat that.
1
1
Show replies